Appeal 2007-0025 Page 26
Application 09/792,151
C. Principles of Law
We incorporate herein the Principles of Law set forth in the Principles of
Law section for the rejection of claims 2, 7-9, 15, and 16 above.
D. Analysis
Because Appellants make the same argument for patentability of
claim 4 as was made for claim 2 (FF 1), we incorporate herein the reasons we used
in finding the arguments per claim 2 unpersuasive as to error in the rejection, and
find that for the same reasons Appellants have not shown error in the rejection of
claim 4.
E. Conclusion of Law
On the record before us, Appellants have failed to show that the Examiner
erred in rejecting claims 4 and 12 over the prior art.
Claims 6 and 14 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Dedrick in
view of Angles in view of Freeman in further view of Gerace.
Because Appellants argue claims 6 and 14 as a group, pursuant to the rules,
the Board selects representative claim 6 to decide the appeal with respect to this
rejection, and claim 14 will stand or fall with claim 6. 37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(1)(vii)
(2006). It reads as follows:
6. A method of evaluating the effectiveness of advertising according to
Claim 5 comprising the steps of:
determining by said broadcast server the advertising rates according to
sales and earning for the product or service according to the advertising
Page: Previous 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013