Appeal No. 2002-1865
Application 09/452,678
claims encompass the concept known in the prior art of the same
or different entities providing single or multiple benefits to a
single customer whether the customer purchases a single or plural
or a specified combination of items.
As to the applied prior art, the examiner's reasoning and
responsive arguments emphasize that it is Schultz which provides
the sophisticated accounting system to keep track of rewards and
the like for purchasers according to the automated tracking
system discussed in detail in Schultz. Like the examiner, we
agree with the examiner's basic reasoning that it would have been
obvious for the artisan to have combined the basic teaching
concepts of Baker into the overall system of Schultz to enhance
Schultz's extensive accounting system. The advantage of Baker is
the indication of a clear teaching of correlating or otherwise
apportioning benefits received by an individual consumer based
upon plural clearly separate or different sources of goods or
services, "sponsors" in the context of the claimed invention. We
also note that in the paragraph bridging specification pages 12
and 13, appellants consider it "obvious" to modify existing prior
art consumer benefit systems.
The identified section at column 6 of Baker relied upon
by the examiner in the rejection clearly indicates to us that
6
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007