Appeal No. 2002-1469 Page 11
Application No. 09/317,110
Claims 5, 6, 13, 14, 21, 22, 29, and 30
At the outset, we note that the appellant argues claims 5, 13, 21, and 29 as a
group. (Appeal Br. at 6, 15.) Although he points out differences in what claims 5, 6, 13,
14, 21, 22, 29, and 30 cover, (id. at 15-16), moreover, this is not an argument why the
claims are separately patentable. Therefore, claims 5, 6, 14, 21, 22, 29, and 30 stand
or fall with representative claim 13.
With this representation in mind, we address the main point of contention
between the examiner and the appellant. The examiner asserts, "Fajkowski shows:
'said at least one purchasing incentive comprises one of a token and a discount
coupon' (see column 20, line 34-38). . . ." (Examiner's Answer at 15.) The appellant
argues, "[a]dding the feature that the raincheck would be a discount coupon or a token
is not taught or suggested by Off et al or Fajowski [sic]." (Appeal Br. at 15.)
"Analysis begins with a key legal question -- what is the invention claimed?"
Panduit Corp. v. Dennison Mfg. Co., 810 F.2d 1561, 1567, 1 USPQ2d 1593, 1597 (Fed.
Cir. 1987). In answering the question, "the Board must give claims their broadest
reasonable construction. . . ." In re Hyatt, 211 F.3d 1367, 1372, 54 USPQ2d 1664,
1668 (Fed. Cir. 2000). "Moreover, limitations are not to be read into the claims from the
specification." In re Van Geuns, 988 F.2d 1181, 1184, 26 USPQ2d 1057, 1059 (Fed.
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007