Appeal No. 2005-2686
Application No. 09/879,823
Rather than repeat the arguments of appellants or the examiner, we make
reference to the briefs and the answer for the respective details thereof.
OPINION
We have carefully considered the subject matter on appeal, the rejections advanced
by the examiner and the evidence of anticipation relied upon by the examiner as
support for the prior art rejection. We have, likewise, reviewed and taken into
consideration, in reaching our decision, the appellants’ arguments set forth in the briefs
along with the examiner’s rationale in support of the rejections and arguments in
rebuttal set forth in the examiner’s answer.
It is our view, after consideration of the record before us, that appellants’
specification fails to support the invention now being claimed. We are also of the view
that the evidence relied upon by the examiner supports the examiner’s prior art
rejection. Accordingly, we affirm.
We consider first the examiner’s rejection of the claims under the first paragraph of
35 U.S.C. § 112. With respect to independent claims 47, 52, 57, 61 and 62, the
examiner objects to the phrases “wherein each coupon may be used a predetermined
number of times” and “monitoring redemption of the one or more coupons such that
3
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007