Appeal No. 2005-1632
Application No. 10/448,194
invention of dependent claim 73, even with the unduly narrow interpretation that is
asserted.
We have considered all of appellant’s arguments, but are not persuaded that the
examiner’s finding of anticipation is in error. We sustain the rejection of claims 68-73,
75-83, 85-93, and 95-97 under 35 U.S.C. § 102 as being anticipated by Deaton.
We also sustain the rejection of claims 74, 84, and 94 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as
being unpatentable over Deaton. Appellant’s Brief (at 35-36) relies on the arguments
we have addressed with respect to claim 68. Appellant seems to reconsider the
position, submitting new arguments in the Reply Brief. Even so, the new arguments do
not traverse the examiner’s position that the subject matter of representative claim 74
as a whole would have been obvious in view of Deaton and the artisan’s knowledge of
customer service, but instead submit that a sense of “customer service” is not a
compelling reason to transmit a message that no benefit is to be credited to the retail
customer. We might agree that a sense of “customer service” is not a “compelling
reason” for the subject matter of claim 74, but the showing of a “compelling reason” is
not the requisite standard for demonstrating prima facie obviousness. Moreover,
appellant admits (Brief at 20) that the artisan had a knowledge of marketing concepts.
We also note that claim 74 recites that the central incentive system is “structured
to transmit” a message to at least one of the retailer POS systems, the message being
defined in the form of the negative limitation that “no benefit is to be credited to said
retail customer.” The claim does not require, for example, an express message on a
-8-
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007