Appeal No. 2002-1469 Page 4
Application No. 09/317,110
Claims 1, 9, 17, and 25
At the outset, we recall that claims that are not argued separately stand or fall
together. In re Kaslow, 707 F.2d 1366, 1376, 217 USPQ 1089, 1096 (Fed. Cir. 1983)
(citing In re Burckel, 592 F.2d 1175, 201 USPQ 67 (CCPA 1979)). Here, the appellant
argues claims 1, 9, 17, and 25 as a group. (Appeal Br. at 6, 11-12.) Therefore,
claims 1, 17, and 25 stand or fall with representative claim 9.
With this representation in mind, rather than reiterate the positions of the
examiner or the appellant in toto, we address the two points of contention
therebetween. First, the examiner asserts, "[r]ainchecking allows the customers to use
the coupon after its expiration date. Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person
of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to add a raincheck mark or
flag to the coupons of the Off et al system as lines 39-46 of column 20 of Fajkowski
shows." (Examiner's Answer at 7.) The appellant argues, "this suggestion to add the
raincheck feature of the coupon management and redemption apparatus and method of
Fajkowski to the method and apparatus of dispensing discount coupons of Off et al is
not found in the prior art itself. " (Appeal Br. at 10.)
"The presence or absence of a motivation to combine references in an
obviousness determination is a pure question of fact." In re Gartside, 203 F3d 1305,
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007