Appeal No. 2005-1632
Application No. 10/448,194
Appellant submits (Brief at 32) that the phrase “consists of,” as used in instant
claim 73, covers embodiments of “certain information” having the recited elements of
“retail customer identification” and “a total dollar amount associated with said
transaction” and no others. While the phrase “consists of” may normally be considered
to limit a group of elements in terms of excluding combination with other elements, in
this case the elements are not defined in the first instance in the exclusionary terms of
the dependent claim.
Base claim 68 recites that the “certain information” includes the retail customer
identification and “less than all of said transaction information....” Dependent claim 73
does not require, under a broad but reasonable interpretation, that the “certain
information” contain the recited elements and no others. Base claim 68 defines the
limits of the “information.” The depending claim may be read as requiring that the
“information” that is defined in the base claim contain the subset of the recited “retail
customer identification” and another element; i.e., the total dollar amount associated
with the transaction.
In any event, appellant does not relate the argued claim interpretation to the
specific teachings of the reference. Deaton discloses use of a retail customer
identification (e.g. col. 64, l. 56 - col. 65, l. 19). Deaton further discloses that the dollar
amount associated with a transaction may be, other than the identification, the only item
of interest at the time of the transaction (col. 65, ll. 20-25). Deaton teaches the
-7-
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007