Appeal No. 2004-0786
Application No. 08/935,116 Page 17
customer information response at the point-of-sale during the
individual customer’s transaction in the retail establishment
upon detection of a unique identification code of the customer as
set forth in claims 10, 11, and 14.”
From our review of Tai, we agree with the examiner that
Tai's disclosure of analyzing redemption characteristics of the
heaviest product purchasers and regular coupon using households,
suggests analyzing prior redemptions, which would involve the
analysis of prior transactions. However, we agree with
appellants (supp. reply brief, page 4) that Tai does not disclose
generating the customer information response at the point of sale
during the customer's transaction upon detection of a unique
identification code of the customer, as set forth in independent
claims 10 and 11, but rather generates customer response at an
earlier time. In addition, we find that Tai does not disclose or
suggest entering a unique customer identification code at the
point-of-sale, and thus does not make up for the basic
deficiencies of Creekmore and Off.
From all of the above, we find that the examiner has failed
to establish a prima facie case of obviousness of claims 10, 11
and 14. Accordingly, the rejection of claims 10, 11 and 14 under
35 U.S.C. § 103(a) is reversed.
Page: Previous 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007