Appeal No. 2007-0395 Page 13
Application No. 09/789,678
1 the customer if and when such service becomes necessary.” (Brief, p. 12).
2 Claim 1 calls for transmitting funds “to the local retailer (20) to service the
3 customer (14)” and “servicing the customer (14) at the local retailer (20) on
4 behalf of the supplier (18) as a result of receiving” the funds. The method
5 claimed does not preclude the local retailer from servicing the customer even
6 though no funds have been or will be received. The funds cause service to
7 be provided but service is not dependent on the funds.
8
9 Motivation
10 Appellant also contends that there is a lack of motivation/suggestion
11 to combine Walker and Rogers and arrive at the claimed invention. FF 18.
12 Appellant argues that Walker and Rogers are concerned with solving
13 different problems as well as problems different than those addressed by the
14 subject invention. According to appellant, Walker involves the problem of
15 manufacturers and retailers competing for the same customers as well as the
16 problem of manufacturers not being able to sell their products at discounted
17 prices without alienating the retailers in contrast to Rogers which addresses
18 the problem of fraud perpetrated on the retailers by unscrupulous customers.
19 Rogers was not applied for a feature connected to the problem it was
20 trying to solve. The Examiner applied Rogers for the purpose of showing
21 that the return of purchased goods to the retailer is known in the art. (See
22 Answer, p. 5). One of ordinary skill in the art would foresee returning of
23 purchased goods to the retailer among the services a retailer would provide
24 under the Walker reimbursement method. Rogers provides more substantial
Page: Previous 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013