Appeal No. 2006-1319
Application No. 10/307,045
contain advertising and redemption coupons. Thus, contrary to appellant’s arguments,
we find that Gee teaches a card which contains the claimed emergency medical
information and the combination of Gee and North teaches all of the limitations of the
claimed invention.
Concerning the motivation to combine the references as stated by the examiner,
both Gee and North are concerned with cards for users to carry, which have spaces for
users to enter medical information. Thus, we find ample evidence to support the
examiner’s finding that the references are analogous art. Further, the examiner finds on
page 5 of the answer that North provides motivation to include a coupon in the device of
Gee, as it provides advertising for a sponsor of the card. We concur with this finding of
the examiner. North teaches that the coupon provides advertising and a way of
identifying demographics of users. See North, column 8, lines 30 through 35 and line 65
through column 9, line 8. Thus, we find that there is ample evidence in the record to
support the examiner’s finding of motivation to combine the references. Appellant’s
arguments that the purpose of North to provide a transaction record which displays
advertisements to the user and others who view its use, differs from the purpose of the
claimed invention are not well taken. We find no limitation in independent claims 9 and
13 directed to the purpose of the coupon, rather, only a limitation identifying that a
coupon exists. Thus, appellant’s arguments have not convinced us of error in the
examiner’s rejection and we sustain the examiner’s rejection of claims 9, 13 and 17.
5
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007