Appeal No. 2005-2657 Page 4
Application No. 09/898,497
reaching our decision, appellants' arguments set forth in the
briefs along with the examiner's rationale in support of the
rejections and arguments in rebuttal set forth in the examiner's
answer.
Upon consideration of the record before us, we make the
determinations which follow. We turn first to the rejection of
claims 1, 2, 4, 6-13, 15, 17-24, 26 and 28-33 under 35 U.S.C.
§ 102(e) as being anticipated by Owensby. To anticipate a claim,
a prior art reference must disclose every limitation of the
claimed invention, either explicitly or inherently. In re
Schreiber, 128 F.3d 1473, 1477, 44 USPQ2d 1429, 1431 (Fed. Cir.
1997).
The examiner’s position is found on pages 2-5 of the final
rejection.
Appellants assert (brief, page 3) that in Owensby, if a user
does not accept advertisements, then no subsidy is applied. If a
user agrees to accept advertisements, the ads are selected
according to the demographic and personal preference information
of the subscriber, including the location of the subscriber at
the time of the call. It is argued (brief, page 4) that unlike
Owensby, the invention adjusts the billing rate subject only to
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007