Appeal No. 2004-2110
Application No. 09/910,654
of the two references would lead the artisan in opposite
directions. Appellant also argues that IAH relates to optical
storage of coupon data and not to electronic storage of such data
(brief, pages 18-23).
The examiner responds that it is inherent that when
Friedes generates and stores the electronic ticket information it
must also generate and store the agent coupon data as per the ARC
regulations. The examiner also argues that ARC and IAH teach
that the agent coupon data must be electronically stored (answer,
pages 11-14).
Appellant responds that Friedes does not once mention
agent coupon data, and that it was error for the examiner to
extrapolate the teachings of Friedes to include agent coupon
data. Appellant also notes that Friedes does not involve a
travel agent so that no agent coupons are necessary and the
regulations of the ARC are irrelevant (reply brief, pages 5-7,
11-13).
We will not sustain the examiner’s rejection of
independent claims 1 and 15. We agree with appellant that there
is no reasonable basis for combining the teachings of Friedes and
IAH. The entire premise of the examiner’s rejection is that an
9
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007