Appeal No. 2002-0124
Application No. 09/192,842
a coupon data processor programmed to correlate said
transaction data with said coupon data read from said coupon card
by said coupon card interface and to reduce said product sale
price by an amount indicated in said coupon data; and
a report generator programmed to generate a products-of-
interest report, wherein said products-of-interest report lists
products identified in coupons selected at said user interface
but not identified in said transaction data.
The examiner relies on the following references:
Axler et al. (Axler) 5,305,197 Apr. 19, 1994
Day et al. (Day) 5,857,175 Jan. 05, 1999
(filed Aug. 11, 1995)
Powell 5,956,694 Sep. 21, 1999
(filed Feb. 11, 1997)
Claims 4, 6 and 15-17 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103
as unpatentable over Powell in view of Axler and Day.
Reference is made to the briefs and answer for the
respective positions of appellants and the examiner.
OPINION
In rejecting claims under 35 U.S.C. § 103, it is incumbent
upon the examiner to establish a factual basis to support the
legal conclusion of obviousness. See In re Fine, 837 F.2d 1071,
1073, 5 USPQ2d 1596, 1598 (Fed. Cir. 1988). In so doing, the
examiner is expected to make the factual determinations set forth
in Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 17, 148 USPQ 459, 467
(1966), and to provide a reason why one having ordinary skill in
-3-
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007