Appeal 2007-0025 Page 17
Application 09/792,151
terminal device onto an external medium. We agree with the Examiner that
Freeman discloses storing advertising information onto an external device (FF 3).
Accordingly we find Freeman discloses this limitation.
Appellants argue that “Freeman does not disclose or suggest storing
advertising information for advertising viewed on a terminal device. While
Freeman uses the phrase "advertisement information," the phrase has a different
meaning in the claim” (FF 2). However, Appellants do not explain what that
difference is. We understand Appellants to be attaching a value to the advertising
information Freeman downloads onto the external device that is, in Appellants’
view, as important as the claimed broadcasting information but not as important as
the claimed advertising information. But the attaching of levels of importance,
without more, amount to the giving of an opinion and as such is not patentably
significant.
Settling
The step at issue calls for (a) a consumer to bring to a store the external
device with the stored advertising information where it is read and (b) settling a
consumer’s account for a transaction associated with the advertising viewed –
which would encompass the advertising information stored on the external device.
In our view, we find that Freeman discloses all the features of this step (FF 4).
Appellants argue that “Freeman differs from the claimed invention in that
the rebate is not applied to a present transaction, but rather stored as electronic
money on the chip card for later use” (FF 3). The difficulty with this argument is
that it is not commensurate in scope with what is claimed. Nothing in the claim
Page: Previous 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013