Appeal No. 2005-2468
Application No. 09/943,941
alone teaches the invention recited in independent claim 1 as discussed above and that
the teachings of Harms further teaches variations in awards and incentives that may be
used to increase purchases.
Appellant argues that the examiner has not provided support for the examiner’s
assertion at page 5 of the answer that Sloane presents the user with status information
regarding current purchases plus previous store purchases. (Reply Brief at page 2.)
We find that at page 5 of the answer that the examiner maintains that Harms is relied
upon to teach customer account information. While we agree that Harms does teach
maintaining account information, we find that Sloane similarly teaches maintaining a
history of purchases for the year to date at column 6, line 64 - column 7, line 3 and
suggests the well known use of frequent shopping cards to identify the customer at
column 5, lines 49-51. Therefore, we do not find the argument persuasive and cannot
agree with appellant that the examiner’s assertion is beyond the scope of Sloane’s
invention. Appellant again argues that Sloane does not teach or suggest the last two
steps of the claimed method. (Reply Brief at page 2.) As discussed above, we
disagree with appellant and find that Sloane teaches and fairly suggests these
limitations. Therefore, we do not find the argument persuasive.
Appellant argues that there is no motivation to combine the teachings of Sloane
and Harms. (Brief at page 6.) The examiner disagrees and maintains that both
8
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007