Appeal 2006-3387
Application 09/385,489
Accordingly, we conclude that the Examiner erred in rejecting claims 30-32 under
35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Jones and Schultz.
CLAIMS 77-83
Appellants argue claims 77-83 as a group (Br. 62-64). As such, we select
claim 77 as a representative claim and the remaining claims stand or fall together
with claim 77. Appellants reiterate the same arguments made as to claim 1 in
support of patentability of claim 77. We do not find these arguments persuasive
for the reasons stated supra. Appellants further contend that claim 77 is not
obvious because Jones and Schultz do not teach capturing link codes for associated
discounts if the trade promotion is an electronic discount trade promotion (Br. 63-
64). The Examiner found that Schultz teaches customer cards that enable the
retailer/manufacturer to issue electronic discounts to customers at the point-of-sale
based on the customer card linking to promotions (Answer 28, citing Schultz, col.
8, ll. 1-3 and 39-41 and col. 4, ll. 64-67). The Examiner determined that it would
have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the
invention to include in the system of Jones customer cards that are linked to
promotions in his trade promotion system because the cards would identify the
customers which could be used to better target advertisements and promotions to
the customers (Answer 28). We agree with the Examiner.
As evidenced by Schultz (col. 4, ll. 28-37), it was commonly known in the
art at the time of the invention that temporary price reductions, such as those
described in Jones (col. 11, ll. 21-23), could be implemented using a customer
28
Page: Previous 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013