Appeal No. 2004-1420
Application 09/567,274
frequently are more likely to be targets to whom coupons will be offered
and the coupon issuer would be very interested in this statistic in
determining whom to target. Therefore, the artisan would have found it
obvious, in view of Barnett’s disclosure, to base the generation of
incentives at least in part, upon frequency of use or redemption of
such incentives.
Appellants have offered nothing to show error in such rationale
because appellants do not attack the obviousness of generating
incentives based at least in part upon frequency of use or redemption;
they merely state that Barnett does not disclose this.
Accordingly, we did explain in our decision why the artisan would have been led to the
instant claimed subject matter and appellants have not convinced us of any error in our decision.
While appellants now argue that Barnett’s teaching of periodic downloading and
frequency is the inverse of periodicity, that we misapprehended the examiner’s position
regarding a “selected time period” and that we rely on facts not in evidence, such as “[u]sers who
employ coupons more frequently are more likely to be targets to whom coupons will be offered,”
appellants do not appear to point to any perceived error in our rationale for sustaining the
rejections. That is, while appellants argue that we rely on facts not in evidence, appellants do
not refute the allegation that “[u]sers who employ coupons more frequently are more likely to be
targets to whom coupons will be offered.” Further, even if, arguendo, we may have applied the
6
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007