Appeal 2007-2593
Application 09/859,359
1 Appellants’ arguments with respect to purchase histories are moot because Sloane
2 describes other preference information such as bar codes that meet limitation [2].
3 The Appellants’ argument that only identification numbers are transmitted is in
4 error because Sloane describes other data such as bar code information being
5 transmitted.
6 The Appellants have not sustained their burden of showing that the Examiner
7 erred in rejecting claims 1, 4-7, 9-11, 15, 16, 18-21, 23-25, 29, 30, 32-35, 37-46,
8 48-55, 57-64, and 66-68 under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) as anticipated by Sloane.
9 Claims 12-14 and 26-28 rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over
10 Sloane.
11 The Appellants do not separately argue these claims, but rely on the arguments
12 made in support of claim 1 above. Thus, these claims stand or fall with claim 1.
13 The Appellants have not sustained their burden of showing that the Examiner erred
14 in rejecting claims 12-14 and 26-28 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over
15 Sloane.
16 CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
17 The Appellants have not sustained their burden of showing that the Examiner
18 erred in rejecting claims 1, 4-7, 9-11, 15, 16, 18-21, 23-25, 29, 30, 32-35, 37-46,
19 48-55, 57-64, and 66-68 under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) as anticipated by, or claims 12-
20 14 and 26-28 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over, the prior art.
21 On this record, the Appellants are not entitled to a patent containing claims 1,
22 4-7, 9-16, 18-21, 23-30, 32-35, 37-46, 48-55, 57-64 and 66-68.
13
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013