Appeal No. 2004-0013
Application No. 09/234,889 Page 3
than any transaction number for a transaction with the merchant
stored in the stored loyalty program information; and
automatically adding the identified transaction information
to the stored loyalty program information at the stand-alone
terminal.
The prior art references of record relied upon by the
examiner in rejecting the appealed claims are:
Deo et al. (Deo) 5,721,781 Feb. 24, 1998
Shinjo et al. (Shinjo) 0,253,240 Mar. 25, 1992
(European Patent)
Willmore 2,274,349 Jul. 20, 1994
(Great Britain Patent)
Carson, College Accounting, Pages 294 and 295, © 1967.
Microsoft Press Computer Dictionary, Third Edition, Page 302 and
439, © 1997.
Claims 1-5, 8, 9, 12-14, 19-25, 27, 31-35, 38-40, 43, 48-57,
60, 68, 72 and 76-79 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
being unpatentable over Willmore in view of Shinjo, and further
in view of Deo, Carson and Microsoft1.
1 Although the examiner only lists Willmore, Shinjo and Deo in the
statement of the rejection, the examiner additionally relies upon the Carson
textbook and Microsoft Dictionary in the body of the rejection. References not
listed in the statement of the rejection are not routinely considered by the
Board. "Where a reference is relied on to support a rejection, whether or not
in a 'minor capacity,' there would appear to be no excuse for not positively
including the reference in the statement of rejection." In re Hoch, 428 F.2d
1341, 1342 n.3, 166 USPQ 406, 407 n.3 (CCPA 1970). However, because both
additional references were also relied upon by the examiner in the final
rejection, and have been argued by appellant in the brief (pages 10-12 and
14), we shall consider the additional references to Carson and Microsoft
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007