Appeal 2007-0770
Application 09/752,330
1 point to pages 8 and 9 of the Appellants’ specification which describe operation of
2 the claimed invention wherein an operator waits for a response. We agree with
3 Appellants. One of ordinary skill in the art, given the Appellants’ disclosure,
4 would understand the term “real time” to not be instantaneous, but rather involve
5 some delay, but nonetheless require the time to be sufficiently immediate to a users
6 input or that enables a computer to keep up with some external process. However,
7 we note that the passages of Appellants’ specification which support the above
8 determination of “real time” are also present in the Mantena patent (i.e., the
9 disclosure on pages 8 and 9 of Appellants specification are virtually identical to the
10 disclosure in column 9 of the Mantena patent). Thus, we find that one skilled in
11 the art would also recognize that the limitation of “while the purchaser waits” in
12 claim 1 of Mantena patent is similarly referring to providing the entitled price in
13 real time. Accordingly, we find for the Examiner and sustain the Examiner’s
14 rejection of claims 1 through 48 under the judicially created doctrine of
15 obviousness-type double patenting.
16
17 b) Rejections under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Lidow
18 ISSUES
19 Appellants contend that Lidow does not teach that the price is obtained by the
20 customer in real time while the customer waits as recited in the claims. (Br. 14).
21 Appellants assert that Lidow teaches calculating pricing after delivery of goods,
22 thus the pricing is not provided real time to when the purchaser ordered the goods.
23 (Reply Br. 5). Further, Appellants argue that the Examiner improperly relied upon
24 the non-function descriptive material doctrine and ignored the limitation of
25 “entitled price” a feature not taught by Lidow. (Br. 14, 15)
8
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013