Appeal No. 2005-0956 Page 9
Application No. 09/342,866
(PDA).” Nothing in the claim requires that the PDA be read as competitive or
entertainment-based. Further, Appellant’s specification recites at page 3, lines
18-19, that the collateral activity may be “any other activity or combination of
activities.” We find that Marino’s collateral activity of listening to advertisements
meets the language of claim 1.
Also at pages 14-20 of the brief, Appellant argues that Marino does not
teach numerous features required by or inherent to claim 1. These features
comprise:
1) A direct link between performance of a PDA and the price of the
product;
2) An uncertain final cost of an item;
3) Enhanced cognitive reasoning;
4) High-level motor skill participation of the user; and
5) Competition and/or entertainment qualities.
Features 2-5 are argued by Appellant to be inherent features of claim 1.
As to the features 2-5, we find Appellant arguments unpersuasive. ”In
determining whether the invention as a whole would have been obvious under
Page: Previous 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007