Appeal No. 2002-1865
Application 09/452,678
sponsors be different. As such, in the context of the claims on
appeal, the recited first and second items may be associated with
the same sponsor.
Claim 1 requires a purchase of a minimum of a first and a
second item, whereas independent claim 20 may be construed to
require only the purchase of one item because the use of the
qualifying language "one or more qualifying items." In another
sense, however, claim 20 may be or is internally inconsistent
since it appears to require, on the one hand, that an accumulated
discount may apply to the purchase of only one qualifying item,
but is defined to further include a first item and a second item.
Again, the recitation in independent claims 20 and 47 does not
require that the first and second sponsors be different.
In the context of these considerations, appellants'
discussion of the prior art at pages 1 and 2 of the specification
as filed is very telling. Whereas, on the one hand, appellants
recognize that the majority of prior art coupons used by
customers apply to single-purchased items, usually the
manufacturer is construed as the sponsor of the promotion. On
the other hand, it has also been recognized that retail sales
promotions may also be offered "which provide a discount if a
customer purchases a specified combination of items." Thus, it
4
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007