Appeal No. 2006-1910
Application No. 09/910,654
decision. The examiner also notes that appellant’s own
specification states that data can include image format data and
that claim 1 stores agent coupon data in an image file
arrangement. The examiner asserts that the term “agent coupon
data” is being given its broadest reasonable interpretation as
required during patent prosecution. The examiner also responds
that the preclusion of electronic storage by ARC does not teach
away from the claimed invention because ARC is simply noting
known alternative storage devices which they find unacceptable
[answer, pages 4-8].
Appellant responds that IAH teaches that all supporting
documents must be copied to microfiche film or to a non-magnetic
optical medium, and that copying is not the same as storing
because copying requires the presence of a physical document.
Appellant notes that the claimed invention does not involve
copying. Appellant also responds that the distinction between
image and data was not addressed. Appellant reiterates that
facsimile transmission or a multimedia network transmission does
not transmit data which is then reconstructed as an image, but
instead, transmits an image. Appellant also disputes the
examiner’s suggestion that appellant’s specification states that
an image of an agent coupon and agent coupon data are the same
thing [reply brief, pages 3-6].
7
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007