Appeal No. 2006-0597 Page 4
Application No. 09/682,876
under 37 CFR 1.181.” Manual of Patent Examining Procedure (MPEP),
§ 2163.06, II, 8 ed., Rev. 3, August 2005, p. 2100-190. Thus itth
is our opinion that there is no accompanying rejection with the
objections stated in the Answer and thus these objections are not
subject to review by this merits panel of the Board. It is our
further opinion that appellant has recourse to petition for
supervisory review of the examiner’s action (i.e., objections)
under 37 CFR § 1.181.
We reverse the examiner’s rejection on appeal essentially for
the reasons stated in appellant’s Brief, Reply Brief, and those
reasons set forth below.
OPINION
With regard to the rejection of claim 76, the examiner finds
that Stewart discloses a method of distributing a voucher
(discount/offer) to a prospective customer who visits a website on
the Internet, which method comprises at least six steps (Answer,
pages 3-4). The examiner further finds that Stewart discloses a
user entering the desired producer, product selection information,
and the user’s personal ID data and location data (such as an
address or geographic location)(Answer, page 4). The examiner
notes that in the United States the address is required to contain
a postal code (zip code)(id.). The examiner further notes that
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007