Appeal No. 2002-0828
Application No. 09/475,126
Rejection under 35 U.S.C. § 102
The Appellant argues that the Examiner has not established
that Travelsavers allocates commissions based solely on the value
of said sales delivered to each of the geographic
distribution/representation areas. In particular, Appellant
argues that the evidence relied on by the Examiner which is the
Rice and SanFilippo articles as well as the Travelsavers web site
does not utilize the delivery location of goods or services to
calculate commissions as in the claimed invention. Furthermore,
Appellant argues that Travelsavers does not handle or administer
any type of commissions to its member agents. Appellant argues
that Travelsavers only provides a referral and allows each
individual member travel agent to profit from that referral
according to each travel agent's individual marketing system.
See pages 8-12 of the brief and the reply brief.
It is axiomatic that anticipation of a claim under § 102 can
be found only if the prior art reference discloses every element
of the claim. See In re King, 801 F.2d 1324, 1326, 231 USPQ 136,
138 (Fed. Cir. 1986) and Lindemann Maschinenfabrik GMBH v.
American Hoist & Derrick Co., 730 F.2d 1452, 1458, 221 USPQ 481,
485 (Fed. Cir. 1984).
44
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007