Appeal No. 2004-0786
Application No. 08/935,116 Page 15
shopping transactions or the identification of any particular
customer.
From our review of Off, we find that Off is directed to a
point-of-sale system for providing coupons or discounts to
customers. We agree with the examiner that an artisan would have
been motivated to combine the system of Off with the system of
Creekmore, in order to provide a coupon generating system at the
point-of-sale in Creekmore. However, from our review of Off, we
agree with appellants that Off is not basing the generation of
coupons or discounts on previous transactions, but rather on the
current transaction. In addition, we find that Off does not
disclose entering a unique customer identification number into a
point-of-sale terminal. Accordingly, we find that Off does not
make up for the basic deficiencies of Creekmore. The rejection
of claims 15 and 16 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Creekmore in view of Off is therefore reversed.
We turn next to the rejection of claims 10, 11 and 14 under
35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Creekmore in view
of Off and further in view of Tai. The examiner's position
(answer, page 6) is that Creekmore in view of Off does not
disclose that the response is related to the individual
Page: Previous 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007