Appeal No. 2004-0786
Application No. 08/935,116 Page 18
We turn next to the rejection of claims 7-32 under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a) as being unpatentable over Creekmore in view of Off, Tai
and further in view of Bigari. The examiner's position (answer,
pages 6 and 7) is that the collective teachings of Creekmore, Off
and Tai do not disclose the claimed dollar amount and time of
purchase. To make up for this deficiency of the prior art, the
examiner (answer, pages 6 and 7) turns to Bigari for a teaching
of "manipulating the dollar amount and time of purchase" . . .
"in order to more effectively target consumers while shopping for
promotional offers designed by marketing agencies."
Appellants assert (brief, pages 29-33) that Bigari does not
make up for the deficiencies of Creekmore, Off and Tai. It is
argued (brief, page 29) that the examiner does not explain how
Creekmore, Off and Tai are being applied to the claims.
Appellants assert (brief, page 30) that Bigari does not disclose
manipulating the dollar amount and time of purchase, but rather
relates to a situation where the consumer must remove some of the
items from his shopping basket because the dollar amount of the
goods exceeds the maximum amount of the voucher.
The examiner responds, (answer, pages 16 and 17) that
Creekmore, Off and Tai are relied upon in the same fashion as
they were applied to claims 10, 11 and 14. The examiner adds
Page: Previous 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007