Appeal No. 2005-2468
Application No. 09/943,941
teachings are directed to “loyalty programs and are strongly related.” (Answer at page
6.) We agree with the examiner that both references are related to aspects of
marketing and influencing and potentially altering a consumer’s purchasing and that it
would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have looked to combine
the two teachings. Appellant argues that Harms is related to different aspects of retail
sales and there is no motivation for the combination. (Reply Brief at page 2.) We
disagree and find that Harms discloses the use of real-time inter-activity at column 9,
lines 16-17 and printing a balance on a receipt, issuing a reward at the point of sale by
the retailer and use of prior purchases and purchase patterns at column 11, lines 8-60.
As discussed above, we do not find this argument persuasive, and we will sustain the
rejection of independent claim 1 and its dependent claims. Similarly, we will sustain the
rejection of independent claim 10 and its dependent claims since no separate argument
for patentability as been set forth.
CONCLUSION
To summarize, the decision of the examiner to reject claims 1-4 and 9-14 under
35 U.S.C. § 103 is AFFIRMED.
9
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007