Appeal No. 2002-1469 Page 8
Application No. 09/317,110
raincheck a coupon. Therefore, we affirm the rejection of claim 9 and of claims 1, 17,
and 25, which fall therewith.
Claims 2-4, 7, 8, 10-12, 15, 16, 18-20, 23, 24, 26-28, 31, and 32
At the outset, we note that the appellant argues claims 2, 10, 18, and 26 as a
group. (Appeal Br. at 6, 12-13.) Furthermore, we recall that "[m]erely pointing out
differences in what the claims cover is not an argument as to why the claims are
separately patentable." 37 C.F.R. § 1.192(c)(7). Although the appellant points out
differences in what claims 3, 4, 7, 8, 11, 12, 15, 16, 19-20, 23, 24, 27, 28, 31, and 32
cover, (id. at 7), this is not an argument why the claims are separately patentable.
Therefore, claims 2- 4, 7, 8, 11, 12, 15, 16, 18-20, 23, 24, 26-28, 31, and 32 stand or
fall with representative claim 10.
With this representation in mind, we address the main point of contention
between the examiner and the appellant. The examiner asserts, "connecting the
Fajkowski server 200 to the POS bus of the Off et al invention would be an obvious
feature as the server 200 is performing similar, functions as the Host computer 16,"
(Examiner's Answer at 20), for the following reasons:
The Fajkowski server 200 would be networked to all the periphery devices
in the store and would compile information from the peripheries
concerning what coupons have been redeemed. Using this information, a
program in the server would generate detailed reports for the store
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007