Appeal No. 2005-1781
Application No. 09/860,407
appellants argue that Quixtar teaches recognition rather than
promotion of an associate, and that Quixtar teaches manual rather
than automatic promotion. Appellants also argue that the
rejection of claim 11 is improper because the examiner has issued
a blanket rejection of the remaining elements of claim 11 [brief,
pages 8-9]. The examiner responds that the rejection has
specifically considered each of the limitations recited in claim
11. The examiner also further explains how he has interpreted
the claimed invention such that the claimed invention is rendered
obvious by the teachings of Intel and Quixtar. The examiner
notes that the recognition of an associate as a new silver
producer constitutes a promotion of the associate to the Silver
Producer status. The examiner also notes that there is at least
one situation in Quixtar where the associate is automatically
recognized [answer, pages 11-16].
We will sustain the examiner’s rejection of claims 11-15 for
the reasons argued by the examiner in the answer. We agree with
the examiner that some of the recognitions taught in Quixtar,
such as becoming a Platinum, are promotions because the associate
is given new responsibilities. We also agree with the examiner
that recognition (promotion) is automatic in Quixtar unless a
newly qualified associate has purchased products from his upline
(page E-1). Thus, appellants’ specific arguments are not
6
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007