Appeal No. 2002-1469 Page 13
Application No. 09/317,110
in the art.'" In re Bell, 991 F.2d 781, 783, 26 USPQ2d 1529, 1531 (Fed. Cir. 1993)
(quoting In re Rinehart, 531 F.2d 1048, 1051, 189 USPQ 143, 147 (CCPA 1976)).
Here, Fajkowski teaches rainchecking as mentioned regarding the first group of
claims that we addressed. We find that the reference further teaches that its raincheck
is for a discount coupon. Specifically, "[r]ainchecking allows a customer to utilize the
coupon after its expiration date." Col. 20, ll. 37-38. Therefore, we affirm the rejection of
claim 13 and of claims 5, 6, 14, 21, 22, 29, and 30, which fall therewith.
CONCLUSION
In summary, the rejection of claims 1-32 under § 103(a) is affirmed. "Any
arguments or authorities not included in the brief will be refused consideration by the
Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences. . . ." 37 C.F.R. § 1.192(a)(2002).
Accordingly, our affirmance is based only on the arguments made in the briefs. Any
arguments or authorities not included therein are neither before us nor at issue but are
considered waived. No time for taking any action connected with this appeal may be
extended under 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a).
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007