Appeal No. 2004-0298
Application No. 09/385,226
enumerated at page 5 of the Brief, and again at pages 3 and 8 of
the Reply Brief, the movie production financing method set forth in
the appealed claims requires the offer of a specific dividend in
the form of a copy of a not yet produced specific and unique movie
in connection with the sale of a security, i.e., a share of stock,
features which we find neither taught nor suggested by any of the
prior art applied by the Examiner.
In conclusion, since we are of the opinion that the prior art
applied by the Examiner does not support the obviousness rejection,
we do not sustain the rejection of independent claims 1, 20, 27,
42, and 46, nor of claims 2-19, 21-26, 28-41, 43-45, and 47-52
dependent thereon. Therefore, the decision of the Examiner
rejecting claims 1-52 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) is reversed.
7
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007