Appeal 2007-0367
Application 09/782,149
Claims 1 through 3 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) as being
anticipated by Hughes.
Claims 4 and 7 through 10 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as
being unpatentable over Hughes.
Claims 5 and 6 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being
unpatentable over Hughes in view of Powers.
Claims 11 through 13 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being
unpatentable over Hughes in view of RFM for Windows.
We refer to the Examiner's Answer (mailed March 21, 2006) and to
Appellant's Brief (filed February 13, 2006) for the respective arguments.
SUMMARY OF DECISION
As a consequence of our review, we will reverse the anticipation
rejection of claims 1 through 3 and the obviousness rejections of claims 4
through 13. We also enter a new ground of rejection for claims 1 through 13
under 35 U.S.C. § 101.
OPINION
Appellant contends (Br. 5-6) that independent claim 1 requires a third
sorting based on the attribute value associated with at least one of the first
and second attributes, whereas Hughes' third sorting is based on a third
discretized attribute score. We agree. Hughes assigns a code from 1 to 5 for
each of three attributes—recency, frequency, and monetary measures—and
sorts based on each score. Thus, the third sort is based on a third attribute
3
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013