Appeal No. 2006-0277
Application No. 10/234,305
Appellant argues that whereas claim 1 requires a system for
transmitting information regarding a restaurant, CyberDiner merely
teaches a system for providing terminals with Internet access
within a business, such as a café, i.e., a “Cyber Café.” The
present apparatus is not a cyber café, as disclosed by CyberDiner,
which merely allows users to access personal electronic mail boxes
and the Internet. Moreover, appellant argues, CyberDiner does not
teach an apparatus having a transmission means in the restaurant
wherein information regarding the restaurant is input into the
apparatus, as required by claim 1.
We do not find appellant’s argument convincing. If one has
access to e-mail and the Internet, which appellant admits a user of
CyberDiner’s apparatus does, we find no patentability in the
specific content of the messages the user inputs. That is, what
does it matter, in terms of patentability of the apparatus, whether
the user/patron of the apparatus in CyberDiner e-mails a message to
a friend regarding the weather or regarding the restaurant, or
café, in which he/she is sitting. Once the apparatus and the
capabilities are taught, as in CyberDiner, it matters not whether
the text message sent to an e-mail box or over the Internet
concerns a review of the restaurant/café or any other topic. The
−5−
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007