Appeal No. 2006-1187
Application No. 10/056,832
compositions, works of literature or works of art are nothing more than abstract
ideas. Claim 1 does not include a limitation directed to any one application of the
method of selling a replica of a product; rather the claim only recites providing the
purchaser of a product with a replica of a product by a specific merchant. Claim
1 recites steps that encompass a variety of forms of making offers to the
purchaser and transferring the replica to the purchaser. Additionally, the claimed
steps encompass many ways to communicate the selling of a replica of a product
to the purchaser. The steps of receiving product information and offering it to the
purchaser do not specify any specific forum or form of communications used to
convey the information and offer. The step of causing the replica to be
transferred to the purchaser is not limited to any manner of transferring the
replica to the purchaser, i.e. the claim does not recite whether the transference of
the replica is the legal transference or physical transference. Thus, the claim
encompasses all ways of selling a replica of a product to a user by a product
merchant and thereby, the claim covers every substantial practical application
thereof. Therefore, the claim preempts any and all uses of the abstraction.
Accordingly, we sustain the examiner’s rejection of representative claim 1 and
the claims grouped with claim 1 in group A (claims 3 through 7, 9 through 12, 14
through 20, 22, 24 through 32, 49 and 52).
Additionally, we are not persuaded by appellant’s arguments relying upon
Ex parte Bowman 61 USPQ2d 1669. Ex parte Bowman is not a precedential
decision and is not binding on the Board.
12
Page: Previous 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007