Appeal 2007-0025 Page 28
Application 09/792,151
intended to incite purchase from a user (col 2, lines 29-42). Furthermore, accessing
an advertisement for further information related to a purchase is purchase related
information” (Answer 12).
4. The Examiner found that “Angles does not explicitly disclose utilizing
actual purchase information” (Answer 12).
5. In that regard, the Examiner relies on Gerace to show as known ”varying
advertisement rates according to purchase information (col 2, lines 39-43)”
(Answer 12).
6. The Examiner concluded that “it would have been obvious to one having
ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to add Gerace's actual
purchase information to Angles purchase related information such that the
information can be utilized by Dedrick to vary the rates for advertisements. One
would have been motivated to do this in order to charge better rates for
advertisements that are deemed for effective” (Answer 12-13).
7. Appellants argued that
the combined references do not suggest determining the advertising rates
according to sales and earnings for the product, according to the advertising
survey. Gerace solely teaches tracking sales from the display of the
advertisement to the user. There is no suggestion to vary the advertisement
rate based upon these sales. In fact, Gerace does not even address the cost of
advertisements. While it is true that Dedrick teaches varying the
advertisement rates, and Angles teaches varying advertisements rates based
upon requests by a customer, the combined references do not support the
Examiner's contention.
(Appeal Br. 20).
8. Appellants also argued that “there is no motivation to combine Gerace and
Page: Previous 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013