Appeal No. 2006-3400
Application No. 10/268,040
checkout terminal provide information to the operations center identifying
coupons redeemed and information concerning the customers who redeemed
the coupon. See column 9, lines 37-45 and 64-68. Nichtberger teaches that
this information can be exchanged periodically or in an on-line constant
communication. See column 29, lines 51-59. We do not find a disclosure in
Nichtberger where the CDU communicates information to the operations
center concerning the validity of the card.
Thompson teaches a discount card system where the discount cards
may be sold as part of a fundraiser. See column 4, lines 9-13. We find no
teaching in Thomson of a step of checking whether a card is authorized.
Principles of Law
Office personnel must rely on Appellants’ disclosure to properly
determine the meaning of the terms used in the claims. Markman v.
Westview Instruments, Inc., 52 F3d 967, 980, 34 USPQ2d 1321, 1330 (Fed.
Cir. 1995). “[I]nterpreting what is meant by a word in a claim ‘is not to be
confused with adding an extraneous limitation appearing in the specification,
which is improper.’” (emphasis original) In re Cruciferous Sprout
Litigation, 301 F.3d 1343, 1348, 64 USPQ2d 1202, 1205, (Fed. Cir. 2002)
(citing Intervet America Inc v. Kee-Vet Laboratories Inc., 12 USPQ2d 1474,
1476 (Fed. Cir. 1989). It is the burden of the Examiner to establish why one
having ordinary skill in the art would have been led to the claimed invention
by the express teachings or suggestions found in the prior art, or by the
implications contained in such teachings or suggestions. In re Sernaker, 702
F.2d 989, 995, 217 USPQ 1, 6 (Fed. Cir. 1983).
6
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013