Appeal No. 2004-0528 Page 9
Application No. 09/204,018
Based on our analysis and review of LeRoy and claim 81, it is our opinion that
the differences include the following limitations: (1) a first consumer mechanism that
receives an item advertisement from a network-connected non-merchant provider, the
item advertisement comprising a description of at least one item; (2) a second
consumer mechanism that receives an input from a consumer to select an item desired
for purchase, wherein the item desired for purchase is selected from the at least one
item described in the item advertisement received from the network-connected
nonmerchant provider; (3) a third consumer mechanism that receives an input from the
consumer to identify from the plurality of purchase lists a purchase list on which the
selected item is to be saved; (4) a fourth consumer mechanism that receives a
consumer input identifying a third party consumer with whom the identified purchase list
is to be shared; and (5) a fifth consumer mechanism that transmits the identified
purchase list to the identified third party consumer.
With regard to these differences, it is our conclusion that the combined teachings
of LeRoy and 2Market would not have made it obvious at the time the invention was
made to a person of ordinary skill in the art to have modified LeRoy to arrive at the
subject matter under appeal. Accordingly, a prima facie case of obviousness has not
been established since the evidence presented would not have led one of ordinary skill
in the art to combine the relevant teachings of the references to arrive at the claimed
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007