Appeal No. 2006-1544
Application 10/024,621
the advertising and reducing costs due to the more targeted nature
of the campaign.
Since we have found appellants’ arguments unpersuasive, and
since we have determined that the applied prior art would have been
suggestive of the invention as a whole set forth in claims 2, 3, 7,
8, 16, 28, 37 through 42, 54, 55, 57, 58, 63, 68 and 69 within the
meaning of 35 U.S.C. § 103, we will sustain the examiner’s rejection
of those claims.
The last of the examiner’s rejections for our review is that of
claims 21 through 23 and 48 through 50 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a)
based on the combined teachings of Maloney, Shim, Nordbye and
Williams. In this instance, appellants have not specifically argued
the examiner’s reliance on Nordbye and Williams, but have again made
the more general argument that the applied references do not teach
or suggest the “providing guidance” step of independent claim 1, or
the “dispensing guidance” step of independent claim 36, and further
that the examiner’s use of Nordbye and Williams does not cure the
deficiencies of Maloney and Shim. Given our findings and conclusions
concerning the collective teachings of Maloney and Shim above, it is
clear that this line of argument is not well founded, and thus is
not persuasive of any error on the examiner’s part. Maloney’s use of
a virtual image of a consumer depicting how the consumer would look
after using a recommended beauty product (page 20) is responsive to
13
Page: Previous 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007