Appeal 2007-0647
Application 10/421,366
combination of familiar elements according to known methods is likely to be
obvious when it does no more than yield predictable results.” Leapfrog
Enter., Inc. v. Fisher-Price, Inc., 485 F.3d 1157, 1161 (Fed. Cir. 2007)
(quoting KSR, 127 S. Ct. at 1739-40). Thus, when we take account of the
inferences and creative steps that a person of ordinary skill in the art would
have employed, we conclude the Examiner has articulated an adequate
reasoning with a rational underpinning that reasonably supports the legal
conclusion of obviousness (See Answer 5). Therefore, we do not agree with
Appellants’ assertion that the Examiner has impermissibly engaged in
hindsight in formulating the rejection.
Elements under section 103
Appellants contend the proffered combination of August, DiPietro,
and Witkowski fails to teach and or suggest the following limitations recited
in claim 1:
the merchant station adapted to provide an order
selection menu to the wireless communication
devices to facilitate a transaction, the order
selection menu comprising a text description and
an image associated with at least one item on the
order selection menu.
(Claim 1).
In response, we note Appellants acknowledge that August and
Witkowski each teach a menu being transmitted to a device (App. Br. 6-7).
We find both August and DiPietro teach wireless transmission to a device
(See August ¶0022; Witkowski ¶0053). We further find DiPietro teaches
8
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013