Appeal No. 2005-2759
Application No. 10/221,916
Appellants further argue that the active transmitter in
Lutterbach is not disclosed or suggested to be a “ticket” that is
issued to a customer upon entering a stadium, and that Lutterbach’s
transmitter 54 was not meant to be used as a ticket but rather a
device to assist in gathering marketing information.
Appellants further argue that there is no motivation to
“combine the cited references” (principal brief-page 11).
Moreover, appellants argue in the reply brief that Lutterbach
does not disclose or suggest altering the display based on
detection of the portable transmitter, as required by independent
claims 6, 11, and 14.
We have carefully reviewed the evidence before us, including
the arguments of appellants and the examiner, as well as the
Lutterbach reference and we conclude therefrom that the examiner
has failed to establish a prima facie case of obviousness, within
the meaning of 35 U.S.C. § 103.
5
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007