Appeal No. 2006-3400
Application No. 10/268,040
We next consider the Examiner’s rejection of claims 14 through 19
and 40 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 (a). Independent claim 14 recites a method
which includes steps similar to those discussed supra with respect to claim
1. As discussed supra we do not find that the combination of Thompson
and Nichtberger teaches or suggests a point of sale terminal communicating
with a host to determine if a discount instrument is activated. The Examiner
has not asserted nor do we find that Barnett teaches or suggests this feature.
Thus, we do not find that the combination of the references teaches or
suggests all of the limitations of independent claim 14.
Conclusions
We consider the Examiner’s rejection of claims 1 through 11, 13, 21
through 28, 30 through 39, and 41 through 48 to be in error as we do not
find that the combination of Nichtberger and Thompson teaches or suggests
the steps claimed in independent claims 1, 21, 31 and 41 which relate to
activation of the discount instrument. Similarly, we consider the Examiner’s
rejection of 14 through 19 and 40 to be in error as we do not find that the
combination of Nichtberger, Thompson and Barnett teaches or suggests the
steps claimed in independent claim 14 which relate to activation of the
discount instrument.
8
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013