Appeal No. 2005-1959
Application No. 09/729,394
limitations of the independent claims. Consequently, we cannot
sustain the obviousness rejection of claims 5, 7 through 9, and
12.
The examiner also rejects claims 17 and 18 over Sansone in
view of Walker. Independent claim 17 does not include the
limitation found lacking from Sansone regarding how the rebate is
calculated. Thus, up to the last paragraph of claim 17 is
disclosed by Sansone. However, claim 17 includes a limitation
that with the postage refill request is sent a user preference
for the form that the rebate is to take, where the choices are a
check, an electronic transfer of funds, an account credit, an
electronic transfer of postage, or a certificate. We note that
choices for rebates are well-known. For example, Discover Card
offers a choice of several types of rebates for credit card
usage. However, the examiner has failed to provide any evidence
that discloses such rebate choices. Walker merely states that
different people like different types of rebates, and, therefore,
gives different types of rebates to different users. However,
Walker does not give the user a choice of the type of rebate that
will be given. Thus, on the record before us, we cannot sustain
the obviousness rejection of claims 17 and 18.
5
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007