Appeal No. 2004-2110
Application No. 09/910,654
arguments actually made by appellant have been considered in this
decision. Arguments which appellant could have made but chose
not to make in the brief have not been considered and are deemed
to be waived (see 37 CFR § 41.37(c)(1)(vii)(2004)).
With respect to independent claims 1 and 15, the
examiner’s rejection is set forth on pages 5-6 of the answer.
The examiner essentially finds that since Friedes teaches the
electronic sale of an airline ticket, and since IAH allowed the
electronic storage of an agent’s coupon, then it would have been
obvious to the artisan to maintain the agent coupon data in
Friedes as an electronic file, available for retrieval and
printing.
Appellant argues that Friedes is not analogous art
because Friedes relates to the paperless storage of images of a
smart card whereas the claimed invention relates to the storage
of data associated with agent coupons from which an actual
facsimile of the agent coupons can be created on demand.
Appellant notes that there is no mention of an agent coupon in
Friedes. Appellant also argues that there is no suggestion in
either reference to combine their teachings in the manner
proposed by the examiner. Appellant asserts that the teachings
8
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007