Appeal 2006-2635
Application 09/935,287
OPINION
In rejecting independent claim 1, the Examiner asserts (Answer 3-4)
that Lalonde discloses all of the limitations except for the use of a website.
The Examiner contends that "using a website to present a good for sale is a
well known, hence obvious, step to follow for those of ordinary skill in the
art." The Examiner (Answer 4) provides as motivation to modify Lalonde
"to present the good for sale to as wide an audience as possible by using the
Internet, and since so doing could be performed readily and easily by any
person of ordinary skill in the art, with neither undue experimentation, nor
risk of unexpected results." Appellants do not contest the obviousness of
presenting goods for sale on a website.
Appellants, however, contend (Br. 5) that Lalonde fails to teach that
the identifying information for the good "compris[es] a series of tones
generated by depression of keys of a telephone," as recited in independent
claim 1. Appellants submit the same argument at pages 2-4 of the Reply
Brief. The first issue, therefore, is whether Lalonde teaches using a series of
tones from a touch tone phone to identify a good for sale.
Lalonde discloses (col. 5, ll. 29-37) transmitting a transaction
identifier (for the received call) using touch tone signals from a phone. The
identifier identifies the call, not the good for sale. Lalonde further discloses
(col. 5, ll. 46-49) using touch tone keys on a phone to "identify a desired
function." Lalonde explains (col. 5, ll. 52-61) that such functions include:
place an ad, change an ad, renew an ad, and cancel an ad. Again, the touch
tone signals do not identify a good for sale.
The Examiner (Answer 7) asserts that Lalonde's disclosure that the
Interactive Voice Recognition (IVR) system can be automated suggests
3
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013