Appeal 2007-2416
Application 10/152,230
To meet claim 1, the Appellant argues, the Wireless Advisor sponsors would
have to pay different fees and the order of the sponsors at the top of the list
would have to be based upon the fee paid (Br. 5-7). Claim 1 does not
require that each third party pays a different fee. Instead, that claim
encompasses a two-level hierarchy – zero fee and fee greater than zero.
The Appellant argues that in view of the Appellant’s Specification,
“fee” in the Appellant’s claim 1 cannot be a zero fee (Br. 6). In support of
that argument the Appellant relies upon the disclosures in the Appellant’s
Specification (Spec. ¶ 28) that 1) a website operator “may charge
subscription or advertising fees”, 2) “a hierarchy of advertisements may be
made accessible through the methods of the present invention insofar as a
higher subscription fee is paid; a particular vendor/service provider is more
prominently displayed or is otherwise featured as part of the regular content
of such a web site”, and 3) the method acts “to potentially provide revenue
for the central web site operator” (Br. 6, Reply Br. 5). None of those
disclosures indicates that by “hierarchy” in claim 1 the Appellant means a
hierarchy wherein each third party must pay a different fee. The first of
those disclosures merely states that fees may be charged, the second
disclosure encompasses display more prominently at the top of a two-level
hierarchy, and the third disclosure encompasses providing revenue from the
Wireless Advisor sponsors listed in random order at the top of the list.
For the above reasons we are not convinced of reversible error in the
Examiner’s rejection.
5
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013