Appeal No. 2006-1187
Application No. 10/056,832
can be an indication of ownership, but we disagree that a person with no receipt
would not be considered an owner. A receipt is a document showing that
payment has been received; oftentimes when gifts are made a receipt is not
given with the gift, yet the recipient of the gift is the owner. In the teaching of
Turkel, it appears that the bank is giving the replica to the homeowner as a gift,
thus we do not find that Turkel necessarily requires a receipt be given to the
home purchaser. Further, in the context of the claim, the owner is the owner of
the product (this would be the home buyer in Turkel) as such the certificate of
ownership associates the owner of the product with the replica. A receipt for
purchasing a replica would associate the purchaser of the replica with the replica,
not the owner of the product the replica represents with the replica. Accordingly,
we will not sustain the examiner’s rejection of either claim 49 or claim 52.
Claim 51.
Appellant asserts, on page 24 of the brief, that claim 51 recites the step of
“offering the purchaser at the time of the sale of the product an opportunity to
receive a replica of the product.” Appellant argues that Turkel suggests “the
bank purchases the replicas after the houses were sold and that the bank made
no offer to the buyers at all, but later gives the replicas as gifts.”
In response the examiner states, on page 17 of the Final rejection mailed
April 27, 2005:
25
Page: Previous 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007