Appeal 2006-3387
Application 09/385,489
having recourse to a valid third party audit of the performance achieved, both
retailer and manufacturer have a clear and current factual record to use in resolving
payment disputes (Answer 4). The Examiner thus determined that it would have
been inherent to track the performance that would help manufacturers determine
how much money they owed to the retailers, because manufacturers would have to
know the products that are in promotion and the payment value of the product for
settlement (Answer 4). The Examiner further found that Schultz teaches a central
management firm which audits and tracks all POS data obtained from retail stores
to settle all rewards promotions between retailers and manufacturers (Answer 5).
The Examiner determined that it would have been obvious to use the central
management firm of Schultz to perform all settlement between manufacturers and
retailers of the Jones system in order to make the system more fraud proof
(Answer 6).
The issue before us is whether Appellants have shown that the Examiner
erred in finding claims 1-32, 37-83, and 88-94 unpatentable over Jones and
Schultz.
FINDINGS OF FACT
We find the following facts by a preponderance of the evidence:
Jones teaches a system and method that electronically audits and tracks the
results of the retailer’s efforts while monitoring and recording all POS transactions.
Each transaction record empirically establishes the incremental sales volume
increase of a particular product promoted to support the trade promotion settlement
5
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013