Appeal No. 2003-1291
Application 09/468,698
(Fed. Cir. 1992). If that burden is met, the burden then shifts
to the applicant to overcome the prima facie case with argument
and/or evidence. Obviousness is then determined on the basis of
the evidence as a whole and the relative persuasiveness of the
arguments. See Id.; In re Hedges, 783 F.2d 1038, 1039, 228 USPQ
685, 686 (Fed. Cir. 1986); In re Piasecki, 745 F.2d 1468, 1472,
223 USPQ 785, 788 (Fed. Cir. 1984); and In re Rinehart, 531 F.2d
1048, 1052, 189 USPQ 143, 147 (CCPA 1976). Only those arguments
actually made by appellants have been considered in this
decision. Arguments which appellants could have made but chose
not to make in the brief have not been considered and are deemed
to be waived [see 37 CFR § 1.192(a)].
The examiner has indicated how he finds the claimed
invention to be obvious over the teachings of Lemon and Deaton
[answer, pages 3-12]. With respect to independent claims 68 and
85, which stand or fall together [brief, page 2], appellants
argue, inter alia, that neither reference teaches a coupon-
generating system adaptive for use with a chain composed of a
plurality of retail establishments, including selecting
particular ones of coupon offers for dispensing by particular one
or ones of the retail establishments and not by other one or ones
of the retail establishments. Appellants note that although
-5-
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007