Appeal No. 2005-2468
Application No. 09/943,941
limitations of independent claims 1 and 10 together maintaining that Sloane does not
teach or suggest the claimed determining step. (Brief at page 5.) Since appellant does
not set forth any separate arguments for patentability, we will group all of the claims as
standing or falling together with independent claim 1.
Appellant argues that in contrast to the teachings of Sloane, the claimed
determining step determines whether or not an immediate purchase of a product will
qualify the customer for an award based on the located incentive award information and
that the determining step determines whether to send an alert to a customer or not by
associating the customer’s scanned product with the located incentive award
information of the consumer wherein the determining step is not based on the
consumer’s scanned product alone. (Brief at page 5.) Here, we do not find that
appellant’s argument is commensurate in scope with the language of independent claim
1. From the express limitations of independent claim 1, we find that Sloane teaches
the recited determining step and transmitting information relating to an opportunity for
receiving an award and display of the information to the consumer. (See Sloane at
column 8 and Figures 8(a)-(c).) From our review of the instant claim language and the
corresponding disclosure, we find no express or implied limitation concerning the
content incentive award or the incentive award information. Therefore,
we give this limitation it’s broadest reasonable interpretation and find this to read on the
6
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007