Appeal 2007-2169
Application 10/068,369
invention was made to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which said
subject matter pertains.’” KSR Int'l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 127 S.Ct. 1727,
1734, 82 USPQ2d 1385, 1391 (2007). The question of obviousness is
resolved on the basis of underlying factual determinations including (1) the
scope and content of the prior art, (2) any differences between the claimed
subject matter and the prior art, and (3) the level of skill in the art. Graham
v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 17-18, 148 USPQ 459, 467 (1966). See also
KSR, 127 S.Ct. at 1734, 82 USPQ2d at 1391 (“While the sequence of these
questions might be reordered in any particular case, the [Graham] factors
continue to define the inquiry that controls.”) The Court in Graham further
noted that evidence of secondary considerations “might be utilized to give
light to the circumstances surrounding the origin of the subject matter sought
to be patented.” 383 U.S. at 18, 148 USPQ at 467.
D. Analysis
Appellants argued solely that the cited references do not disclose
storing customer loyalty information in a front-end computer. We find
Kawan discloses this claim element.
Claim 1 describes a system that comprises a “front-end computer.”
The claim does not further describe the “front-end computer” except in
terms of what it stores (i.e., “a second database for storing loyalty rules and
for storing user data and a spreadsheet engine for processing user transaction
data in accordance with the loyalty rules”) and that it is included in a point-
of-sale terminal. The Specification provides a similarly broad description of
the front-end computer. FF 2. Accordingly, the broadest reasonable
construction of the term “front-end computer” in claim 1 in light of the
6
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013