Appeal No. 2002-0124
Application No. 09/192,842
In the instant case, it is our view that the examiner has
not established such a factual basis so as to support the
examiner’s legal conclusion of obviousness.
We refer to the answer for the examiner’s application of the
references to the instant claimed subject matter. We do not
repeat it here or concern ourselves with the specific application
of Powell and Axler because appellants do not dispute the
examiner’s application of these references. Appellants’ argument
focuses on the Day reference and whether it suggests generating a
“products-of-interest” report (claims 4 and 15) or a “coupons-to-
expire” report (claims 6 and 17).
The examiner admits that not one of the applied references
discloses a processor generating specific reports such as a
“products-of-interest” report or a “coupons-to-expire” report
(see bottom of page 4 of the answer). Yet, the examiner contends
that while no applied reference teaches these specifically
claimed limitations, it would have been obvious, in view of Day’s
teachings “to incorporate the additional features available in
the paperless coupon system” (answer, page 5), such as a
“shopping list, a coupons-to-expire report, a report of products
actually redeemed or products selected by the customer but not
redeemed, a product list for super promotions, anniversary
-5-
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007