Appeal No. 2006-0597 Page 5
Application No. 09/682,876
Stewart teaches many methods for determining the user’s location
(Answer, pages 4-5). The examiner applies Scroggie for the
disclosure of a similar method to that of Stewart of distributing a
voucher in which the user is required to enter his or her zip code,
since many features of the system are location-dependent (Answer,
page 5). From these findings, the examiner concludes that it would
have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time
of appellant’s invention to use a postal code or zip code if the
general location of the user was desired information, as taught by
Scroggie, in order to provide a “quick method of targeting general
area advertisements or promotions” in the method of Stewart (id.).
The initial burden of establishing a prima facie case of
obviousness rests with the examiner. See In re Oetiker, 977 F.2d
1443, 1445, 24 USPQ2d 1443, 1444 (Fed. Cir. 1992). The examiner
finds that Stewart discloses a method which generates a voucher
redeemable only at a reseller selected by the system (Answer,
page 4, citing col. 27, ll. 26-37). However, as correctly argued
by appellant (Brief, pages 19-20), the generation of a voucher by
the method of Stewart is an unsolicited offer by a seller (see col.
26, l. 42-col. 27, l. 37). The examiner has failed to establish
how this voucher system of Stewart meets the limitation of claim 76
on appeal, where the website generates a voucher having a time
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007