Appeal Number: 2006-1574
Application Number: 09/903,177
We find the appellant's arguments to be unpersuasive. As the examiner argues, the claim
limitation is to “vehicle specific” not “vehicle category specific” data. This phrase is more broad
than as the appellant argues, and may reasonably encompass distance traveled by a specific
vehicle, i.e. the distance traveled by a specific vehicle is vehicle specific data. This is a mere
tautology.
We note that in the appellant’s extensive analysis of the definition of “specific” in the reply
brief, the many arguments purporting to show that “specific” means specific category, would be
equally persuasive when applied to arguing that “specific” means specific instance. For
example, the appellant argues that one definition of “specific” from the dictionary is “intended
for, or acting on a particular thing.” [See Reply Brief at p. 3] A particular instance is a
particular thing, and so according to this definition, vehicle specific data may encompass data
that is intended for, or acting on a particular vehicle. We note that distance traveled that is
recorded within a vehicle is an element of data intended for that particular, i.e. specific, vehicle.
We make no determination as to whether distance traveled would be an embodiment of
vehicle category specific data, were the appellant to so amend the claim.
Accordingly we sustain the examiner's rejection of claims 1, 22 and 36 rejected under
35 U.S.C. § 102(b) as anticipated by Minnesota.
Claims 22 and 28 through 33 rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) as anticipated by Walkey.
We note that the appellant argues these claims as a group. Accordingly, we select claim 22
as representative of the group. Marion describes the use of a vehicle transponder to transmit data
regarding fuel and other purchases and to qualify a purchase for discount. Walkey describes
using an active or passive data provider inside the gas tank entry tube to transmit its contents to a
reader on the gas nozzle.
The appellant argues that the claim limitation “determining, at least partially, by said fuel
pump computer, a per unit price of the fuel sold to said vehicle, using said data” is not met by a
customer making allowable fuel grade selections.[See Brief at p. 18]. The appellant again argues
that Walkey does not refer to a specific vehicle category.
5
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007