Appeal No. 2006-3400
Application No. 10/268,040
Analysis
The first issue we consider corresponds to 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). Independent claim 1 recites a method including
the steps of “transmitting the identifier from the point-of-sale device to a
host system…. receiving, with the point-of-sale device from the host system,
a validation for the present discount instrument.” Independent claim 21
recites a method with similar steps, however the steps are claimed from the
perspective of the host system vs. the point of sale terminal as recited in
claim 1. Independent claim 31 recites a device which performs similar steps.
Independent claim 41 recites a computer program which includes
instructions to perform similar steps.
Thus, each of the independent claims recites limitations that include a
point of sale terminal and a host system where the point of sale terminal
communicates with the host system to determine if a discount instrument is
activated. As discussed supra, we find that Nichtberger teaches a system for
processing a customer’s discount instrument; however, we find no teaching
or suggestion in Nichtberger which discusses a point of sale terminal
communicating with a host to determine if a discount instrument is activated.
Further, we do not find that Thompson teaches or suggests communication
between a point of sale terminal and host to determine if a discount
instrument is activated. Thus, we do not find that the combination of the
references teaches or suggests all of the limitations of the independent
claims, 1, 21, 31 and 41.
7
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013