Appeal No. 2003-2165 Page 12
Application No. 09/067,093
holder to a sporting event based on the admission stamp, or automatically earmarking
the reference's electronic ticket with the admission stamp to prevent multiple admissions
to the event via the same ticket.
The examiner does not allege, let alone show, that the addition of Rosen,
Pitroda, or Merrill, cures the aforementioned deficiency of Lebet and Hiroya. Absent a
teaching or suggestion of automatically compiling an admission stamp, downloading the
stamp into a portable card that also stores a sporting ticket, admitting a person to a
sporting event based on the admission stamp, and automatically earmarking the
sporting ticket with the admission stamp to prevent multiple admissions to the sporting
event via the same ticket, we are unpersuaded of a prima facie case of obviousness.
Therefore, we reverse the obviousness rejection of claim 33 and of claims 34-42, which
depend therefrom.
C. CLAIMS 53-64
Admitting that "Messina lacks an explicit recital of 'earmarking with a restricted
code also into a merchandise list included in a merchant database,'" (Examiner's
Answer at 9), the examiner asserts, "[i]t would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill
in the art at the time of the invention that the disclosure of Messina (col. 14, ll.15-
Page: Previous 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007