Appeal No. 1997-3968
Application No. 08/318,914
1994
The following additional evidence was relied on by the
examiner:
A “conventional offering plate,” and “commonly known prior art
procedures” (Answer, page 5).
Claims 1 through 13 and 28 through 37 stand rejected
under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over the
conventional offering plate, commonly known prior art
procedures, Teicher and Kumar.
Reference is made to the briefs and the answers for the
respective positions of the appellant and the examiner.
OPINION
The obviousness rejection of claims 1 through 13 and 28
through 37 is reversed.
The examiner indicates (Answer, page 6) that it is known
to manually pass a conventional offering plate between
successive contributors, and that it is known to accept a
donation by means of a credit card “without pre-authorization
or authorization at the time the donation/pledge is made.” In
view of Teicher’s teaching that a debit/credit card is more
3
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007