Appeal 2007-1305
Application 09/725,394
1 • Neither Schneider nor Fucarile teach, disclose, or suggest software executing
2 on the Internet server for generating a property transfer request form
3 indicative of a transfer of rights to the property as required by claim 3
4 (Br. 12); and
5 • There is no motivation to combine Schneider and Fucarile (Br. 12-14).
6 Thus, the issue pertinent to this appeal is whether the rejection of claims 1-10
7 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as obvious over Schneider and Fucarile is proper. In
8 particular, the issue turns on whether Schneider and Fucarile show the contended
9 claim elements, whether it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill to
10 apply those elements, and whether such a person of ordinary skill would have
11 combined Schneider and Fucarile to achieve the claimed invention.
12
13 FACTS PERTINENT TO THE ISSUES
14 The following Findings of Fact (FF), supported by a preponderance of
15 evidence, are pertinent to the above issues.
16 Claim Construction
17 01. Commercial transactions are collectively referred to as transfers
18 (Specification 1). The Specification states that whenever a commercial
19 transaction is discussed, it is referred to as a transfer, but it does not state
20 that whenever a transfer is discussed it necessarily means a commercial
21 transaction.
22 02. Therefore a transfer request is a request for a transfer of rights to
23 property.
5
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013