Appeal No. 2005-2686
Application No. 09/879,823
invention” [column 99, line 18]. Thus, appellants are citing a
portion of Von Kohorn which is a different embodiment than the
one relied on in the Board decision. Second, the portion of Von
Kohorn relied on by the Board specifically states that
participants can designate areas of interest and receive coupons
related to the area of interest. Therefore, these participants
are targeted for receiving coupons in the area of interest. Only
participants having designated this area of interest receive
these coupons in this embodiment.
Appellants also argue that the decision fails to address
the “monitoring redemption” element of the claimed invention.
Appellants additionally argue that the recitations of dependent
claims 51 and 56 are not met by Von Kohorn [request, pages 14-
17].
These arguments were addressed to the extent that they were
made in the briefs. Appellants are not permitted to have
arguments considered in a request for rehearing that were not
made in the briefs.
Appellants argue that our decision in this case conflicts
with the decision in a related appeal [request, pages 17-18]. We
regret that the decision in the related appeal was made before
the Board had fully grasped all the teachings of Von Kohorn.
4
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007