Appeal 2006-2635
Application 09/935,287
using touch tones to provide information identifying a good. Appellants
assert (Br. 7-8 and Reply 4) that the use of the IVR system is limited to the
step of sending information to the DBS and does not include the step of
gathering ad information. We find that Lalonde discloses (col. 6, ll. 3-10)
that when the seller places a call, the IVR sends an operator request message
to the DBS, and the DBS prompts the operator for information about the ad.
Lalonde continues (col. 6, ll. 10-13) that the operator sends the requests to
the seller via the headset, "receives the seller's responses via the same path,"
i.e., through the headset, "and inputs such responses to DBS 16." Lalonde
states (col. 6, ll. 14-15) that "this step could be automated using the IVR,"
(emphasis ours) but that a human operator is preferable in order to explain
options to the seller. By "this step" Lalonde refers to the last mentioned
step, or rather, the step of an operator inputting to the DBS the responses
about the ad received from the seller, as asserted by Appellants. However, if
the IVR is to input the received responses to the DBS, then the IVR must
first receive the responses about the ad from the seller. Since the IVR
responds to digital or touch tone inputs, we find that the seller inputs
responses about the ad (or information about the product) using the buttons
on a touch tone phone. Accordingly, we will sustain the obviousness
rejection of claims 1 and 2.
Regarding claims 3 and 23, Appellants contend (Br. 8-10) that
Lalonde fails to disclose providing an identification code by touch tone
phone. Appellants add (Br. 9) that adding a code, such as a UPC code, to an
ad would not provide meaningful information to the buyer in a system like
that of Lalonde. The Examiner asserts (Answer 4) that "standard product
identification codes such as UPC and ISBN number are well known, hence
4
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013