Appeal 2007-1775
Application 09/749,106
12A). Appellants’ argument that “a mere list of customers is not a
subscriber group because the customers are not identified as being part of an
explicit ‘subscriber group’” (Reply Br. 5) is not understood. It is evident
that the customers identified in this list are subscribers because Bonomi uses
the terms “customer” and “subscriber” interchangeably. See, e.g., col. 19, ll.
14-18 (“[E]ach of the subscriber accounts in the media management system
can be customized by the administrator or the customer (subscriber)
according to a particular service agreement with the customer or preferences
set by the customer.”). Thus, we find Bonomi’s list of customers represents
a group of subscribers.
The Examiner looks to the teachings of Pallakoff for the
determination of a lower price if purchases have been made by a threshold
number of subscribers (i.e., buyers) (Answer 3-4). Appellants contend that
Pallakoff’s pricing scheme is based upon “aggregate demand,” (i.e., demand
for a particular number of units) and not on a threshold number of
subscribers (Br. 11).
We agree with the Examiner that Pallakoff gives examples of basing
the price on a threshold number of buyers. One example is for the seller to
notify Buying Group members that “[w]e need 5 more people to join the
Buying Team in order to get the Soccer Balls for only $10 each” (col. 10, ll.
48-49), in which case the threshold number of buyers equals the current
number of members plus five. Another example is to have sellers “offer a
special price if enough people agree to purchase exactly 500 units (in
aggregate) of a given item (e.g. because the seller has exactly 500 units to
sell)” (col. 11, ll. 17-20). A further example is given in the following
9
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013