Appeal No. 2005-1632
Application No. 10/448,194
Appellant’s argument as to why the rejection based on the “second claim
construction” should be considered in error appears to be that, as discussed at pages
23 through 29 of the Brief, Deaton fails to disclose “a network providing for data
communication between each one of said plurality of retailer POS systems and said
central incentive computer system,” as recited in claim 68.
Appellant seems to ignore the examiner’s finding that Deaton’s host system (e.g.,
Fig. 1) meets the terms of the claimed “central incentive computer system.” We find
ample support for the finding at least at column 20, line 63 through column 21, line 35
and column 59 of the reference, discussing the respective tasks of the host and remote
systems. With respect to an asserted lack of communication, appellant in fact quotes
(Brief at 23-24) from column 11 of Deaton, disclosing that a transaction processor 112 is
able to communicate with other systems through a telecommunications interface.
According to appellant, there is not a network providing for data communications
between each one of the plurality of remote systems and the host (notwithstanding, for
example, Deaton Figure 1) because Deaton does not teach transaction processor 112
processing requests from other stores. We disagree, because the host transaction
processor does process requests from other stores, as made plain in the particular
sections of Deaton that we have noted.
The remainder of appellant’s arguments in defense of claim 68 consist of alleging
benefits of the disclosed invention over Deaton and quoting from the instant written
description and alleging that Deaton fails to teach what is described. We decline to --
-5-
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007