Appeal No. 2006-3400
Application No. 10/268,040
over Nichtberger in view of Thompson. The Examiner’s rejection is set
forth on pages 3 through 6 of the Answer. Claims 14 through 19 and 40
stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 (a) as being unpatentable over
Nichtberger in view of Thompson and Barnett. The Examiner’s rejection is
set forth on page 6 of the Answer. Throughout the opinion we make
reference to the Briefs, and the Answer for the respective details thereof.
Issues
Appellants contend that the Examiner’s rejection of claims 1 through
11, 13, 21 through 28, 30 through 39, and 41 through 48 under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a) is in error for two reasons. First, Appellants assert, on pages 6
through 9 of the Brief, that cited art does not teach activation of discount
instruments as part of a fundraising drive and confirming that the discount
instrument is activated as claimed in the independent claims. Second,
Appellants assert, on pages 9 and 10 of the Brief, that the Examiner has not
shown that one skilled in the art, would be motivated to combine the
teachings of Nichtberger and Thompson.
Appellants contend that the Examiner’s rejection of claims 14 through
19 and 40, under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) is in error for the reasons asserted with
respect to the rejection of claim 1. Further, Appellants argues that the
addition of Barnett does not teach the claimed limitations missing from
Nichtberger and Thompson.
The Examiner contends that claims 1 through 11, 13 through 19, 21
through 28 and 30 through 48 are properly rejected under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a). The Examiner states that Nichtberger teaches activation from
3
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013