Appeal Number: 2006-1773
Application Number: 10/051,000
• Whether the claimed lack of the capacity of a claimed deed to convey
property distinguishes the invention over the prior art.
• Whether data in the claimed document that characterize the delineation of
property subdivisions distinguishes the invention over the prior art.
• Whether the size of land parcels specified in a claimed document
distinguishes the invention over the prior art.
• Whether the claimed steps are found in moonshop.com .
• Whether property subdivision described in the claimed document is obvious
over Galaty.
In particular, the appellant contends that the claim includes a novel creation
of a form and content of a Deed of Claim that does not convey property, that the
delineation of property in the Deed of Claim is novel, that the size of parcels
described in the Deed of Claim are particularly appealing, and that moonshop does
not suggest several of the steps in the claimed method.
FACTS PERTINENT TO THE ISSUES
Claim 17 contains the following limitation elements. We have enumerated
the elements for ease of reference within this opinion.
Limitation
1 17. A method of doing business, comprising operations of:
2 developing, producing, assembling, and offering for sale a documentation
package covering a lunar land property parcel;
3 wherein the package includes decorative and educational imagery related
to the parcel, and further, includes a document herein defined as a Deed of Claim
for the parcel;
3
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013