Appeal No. 2001-1862
Application No. 09/102,044
Additionally, the claim merely recites “issuing the stored value card, wherein the stored
value card is marked . . .” without a limitation as to at the time of issuance. Appellants
argue that Your Choice does not have a recipient’s name embossed on the card. (See
brief at page 9.) We do not find support for appellants’ argument in the language of
claim 53, and the argument is not commensurate with the language of independent
claim 53.
Additionally, appellants argue that your Choice is not personalized.1 (See brief at
page 9.) We do not find support for appellants’ argument in the language of claim 53.
Therefore, we agree with the examiner that Your Choice teaches the marking of the
name thereon by the recipient to have the card accepted by merchants. With the
storage of a scanned image of each transaction for archival purposes including the
signature, rather than the retention of the paper copy, we find that the database would
have the recipient’s name and the account number stored therein. Similarly, at the time
of purchase, the seller would have input the purchaser’s information into a database
and purchase amount. Additionally, the examiner maintains that the embossing of a
card with a recipient’s name was common practice in issuing rebates and gift
certificates. (See answer at page 31.) Again, we agree with the examiner, but we find
1 We note appellants argue that “independent claim 1 recites . . .” but we interpret this argument
to be directed to independent claim 53 since claim 1 has been canceled.
12
Page: Previous 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007