Appeal No. 2004-1420
Application 09/567,274
generated for said identification” is not taught by Barnett. In particular, appellants argue that
Barnett teaches what is stored in the database 11 and those stored elements do not include a time
of prior use of a purchase incentive generated for identification.
While appellants are arguing that the “frequency of use” limitation of some of the claims
is not taught by Barnett, as we said in our decision, the rejection is not one based on anticipation,
but, rather, on obviousness. Therefore, the applied reference need not teach each and every
element, including “frequency of use.” It is only necessary that the applied reference suggests
the claimed subject matter so that the artisan would have been led, from its teaching, to base the
incentive generation at least in part upon frequency of use.
As we indicated in our decision at pages 11 and 12:
The cited portion of column 7 of Barnett makes it clear that
distribution of user-specific data to the coupon distribution center
is of value and that such data is used for marketing analysis so that
subsequent coupon packages may be targeted specifically at certain
users. The reference also makes it clear thereat that the coupon
distribution center utilizes the user-specific redemption data along
with the user-specific demographic data supplied by an online service
provider in order to compile subsequent coupon data.
It appears to us that the artisan would have recognized that frequency
of use or redemption is part of the user-specific data and/or user-specific
redemption data taught by Barnett. Users who employ coupons more
5
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007