Appeal No. 2005-1959
Application No. 09/729,394
transactions," rather than on the postage refill amount. We
agree. As pointed out by appellants (Brief, page 7), Sansone
discloses (column 3, lines 34-42) that the information received
by the rebate processor includes identification numbers for the
kiosk and postal meter, the time and date of each postal
transaction, and the type of each postal transaction. Sansone
does not disclose that the rebate processor receives information
regarding the postage refill amount. Thus, Sansone fails to
disclose or suggest each and every element of independent claims
1 and 10. Accordingly, we cannot sustain the anticipation
rejection of claims 1, 3, 4, 10, 14, and 15.
Claims 2 and 13 have been rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a)
over Sansone alone. Since claims 2 and 13 depend from claims 1
and 10, respectively, the rejection of claims 2 and 13 suffers
from the same deficiencies as the rejection of claims 1 and 10.
Therefore, we cannot sustain the obviousness rejection of claims
2 and 13.
As to claims 5, 7 through 9, and 12, the examiner combines
Walker with Sansone asserting (Answer, page 4) that Walker
teaches that a rebate can be in the form of a certificate.
However, Walker is directed to rebates for credit card usage and
fails to overcome the shortcomings of Sansone with respect to the
4
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007