Ex Parte Goulden et al - Page 6



          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.                          


                                          6                                           



Page:  Previous  1  2  3  4  5  6  7  8  9  Next 

Last modified: November 3, 2007