Appeal Number: 2006-2502
Application Number: 09/768,434
The appellants then present a laundry list of arguments regarding claims 15-19:
Challener does not disclose or suggest receiving a message which
includes a product code (in addition to the service tag) as required by
Claim 15; authorizing a purchaser to receive a benefit as required by
Claim 16; verifying the service tag where the verifying includes
receiving the service tag from the computer system, recalling the
service tag stored in the server and comparing the service tag received
from the computer system to the service tag recalled from the server
to determine if the service tag received from the computer system
matches the service tag recalled from the server as required by Claim
17; authorizing a purchaser to receive a benefit if the service tag
received from the computer system matches the service tag recalled
from the server as required by Claim 18; or, establishing an internet
service provider service account if the service tag received from the
computer system matches the service tag recalled from the server as
required by Claim 19.
(Br. 12).
We note that Challener’s service is an identified service, and such
identification is a form of product or service code, that the passage from Challener,
supra, describes authorizing access to the service, i.e. receiving the benefit by
comparing the codes from the server and the customer. Challener suggests the
service may be an internet service, at col. 3 lines 20-24.
Accordingly we sustain the examiner's rejection of claims 1, 14 through 18 and
19 under 35 U.S.C. § 102(e) as anticipated by Challener.
6
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013