Appeal Number: 2006-1574
Application Number: 09/903,177
The examiner responds that as to the use of ullage data, Marion is essentially another means
for providing data regarding the selection of fuel types as argued above in the rejection over
Walkey. We note that the transponder in Marion does transmit data to the fuel pump that results
in fuel grade selection as in Walkey. [See Marion Para. 238].
Of greater persuasive authority is the description of a unit price discount. [See Para. 108-
113]. We note that the use of data to provide a unit price discount is inherently a use that data to
determine a per unit price of what is sold, including fuel. As to the argument regarding specific
vehicle category, we find this to be unpersuasive for the same reasons we stated above.
Therefore, we find the appellant's arguments to be unpersuasive.
Accordingly we sustain the examiner's rejection of claims 22 and 33 through 35 rejected
under 35 U.S.C. § 102(e) as anticipated by Marion.
Claim 23 rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as obvious over Minnesota.
The appellant has stated that the claim in this rejection stands or falls with the independent
claims rejected under novelty above, and accordingly we sustain the examiner's rejection of
claim 23 rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as obvious over Minnesota.
Claim 3 rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as obvious over Minnesota in view of Transportation
Issues.
The appellant has stated that the claim in this rejection stands or falls with the independent
claims rejected under novelty above, and accordingly we sustain the examiner's rejection of
claim 3 rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as obvious over Minnesota in view of Transportation
Issues.
7
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007