Appeal 2006-2109
Application 10/680,678
1 The sole issue presented is whether it was proper to combine Helbling and
2 Burke. If a technique has been used to improve one device, and a person of
3 ordinary skill in the art would recognize that it would improve similar devices in
4 the same way, using the technique is obvious unless its actual application is
5 beyond that person’s skill. (See KSR, supra). Burke teaches techniques for
6 implementing a point of sale terminal process that collects funds for donations (FF
7 08). Helbling similarly collects funds for donations (FF 03), and therefore one
8 skilled in the art, upon reading Helbling, would have looked to Burke for
9 implementation details. The Appellant’s contentions revolve around which
10 customers might actually use each system, but there is no requirement that all
11 configurations of all references be wholly incorporated as is. A reference might be
12 referred to for its teaching of a particular technique that is pertinent to solving a
13 problem in another reference. Thus, the Examiner has shown that all of the claim
14 elements, are shown by the combination of Helbling and Burke, or they would be
15 predictable variations of Helbling and Burke, and that it would have been obvious
16 to a person of ordinary skill in the art to have combined Helbling and Burke to
17 form the claimed subject matter.
18
19 CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
20 The Examiner has shown that all of the claim elements, and particularly the full
21 and reduced portion meals and prices and the amount donated to charity of the
22 claimed subject matter, are shown by Helbling, or they would be predictable
23 variations of Helbling. Accordingly we sustain the Examiner's rejection of claims
24 1-6, 11-14, and 19-20 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as obvious over Helbling.
18
Page: Previous 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013