Appeal 2007-1775
Application 09/749,106
(i.e., Figs. 7A and 8C and column 24, lines 56-57) merely depicts
administration users and does not refer to subscribers (Br. 12).
Appellants further contend the secondary Pallakoff reference does not
teach determining a first price for the purchase order if the program has been
purchased by a threshold number of subscribers belonging to the subscriber
group, and determining a second price, higher than the first price, if the
program has not been purchased by the threshold number of subscribers
belonging to the subscriber group, as required by the language of claim 1
and the equivalent language of claim 15 (Br. 10-11). Specifically,
Appellants argue that Pallakoff’s pricing scheme is based upon “aggregate
demand,” and not on a threshold number of subscribers (Br. 11).
Appellants acknowledge the Examiner has also suggested that the
“Buying Team” described in Pallakoff at column 10, lines 43-56 is a
“subscriber group” 2 (Br. 11). In response, Appellants assert that Pallakoff’s
customers must actually purchase an item to become a member of the
Buying Team, “thereby affecting the aggregate demand for units sold . . .”
(id.).
The Examiner disagrees. Regarding the teachings of Bonomi, the
Examiner contends that Bonomi’s list of customers is a subscriber group
defined by two or more customers, as shown in Figure 12A under the
heading “CUSTOMER LIST” (Answer 11). In particular, the Examiner
notes that Bonomi expressly discloses a subscriber (named “Li Liu”) who
has an account (i.e., an independent account) with the media system, as
2 See Advisory Action mailed Mar. 23, 2006, p. 2.
6
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013