Appeal No. 2004-0786
Application No. 08/935,116 Page 14
it would not have been obvious to have combined the teachings of
Off with the teachings of Creekmore. It is further asserted
(brief, page 21) that even if combined the combination would not
result in the claimed subject matter. Appellants reiterate that
Creekmore does not teach or disclose entering a unique
identification code for a customer at a point-of-sale terminal,
and assert (brief, page 21) "Creekmore does not teach or suggest
entering into said terminal transaction data relating to the
customers shopping transactions." It is argued (id.) that Off
only teaches or suggests entering at a point-of-sale terminal
transaction data relating to a current shopping transaction, and
does not teach entering transaction data relating to the
customer's prior shopping transactions. It is further argued
(brief, page 23) that Off teaches away from the claimed invention
because Off does not teach entering into a point-of-sale terminal
a unique identification code for a customer, and therefore does
not teach or suggest responding to an entry, during a current
transaction, of a unique code for a customer, as recited in claim
15. It is additionally argued (brief, page 24) that Off is
directed to detecting triggering products in a customer's current
shopping transaction, and does not involve analyzing prior
Page: Previous 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007