Appeal No. 2005-2759 Application No. 10/221,916 Initially, we note that appellants’ argument anent no motivation to “combine the cited references” is nonsensical since there is only one reference applied against the claims. Further, we are unpersuaded by appellants’ argument anent the instant invention’s passive transmitter compared with Lutterbach’s active transmitter because the instant claims do not require a passive transmitter nor do they preclude an active transmitter. Arguments directed to limitations not appearing in the claims are not persuasive of patentability. We also do not find persuasive appellants’ argument anent Lutterbach’s alleged failure to teach or suggest that the portable transmitter is a “ticket.” Since the reference clearly suggests that the transmitter may be issued to customers at sporting events, such as the Super Bowl, as they enter the stadium (see column 5, lines 61-64), it would have been obvious to artisans that such transmitters may be considered “tickets.” The artisan would have understood that the transmitters could be given to customers with the normal admission tickets, or the transmitters, themselves, could obviously serve as the tickets of admission. 6Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 NextLast modified: November 3, 2007