Appeal No. 2006-1187
Application No. 10/056,832
Merchant 14 may provide purchasers 10 or owners 12 with a replica 6 in
the normal course of business (omitting step 220). In such a scenario, the
price of the product 4 essentially includes the price of the replica 6, thus
giving purchasers 10 the impression that the replica is a gift.
Claim 51 includes the limitation “offering the purchaser at the time of the sale of
the product an opportunity to receive a replica of the product.” We find that the
above noted passage from the appellant’s speciation clearly teaches that the
replica can be given (presented) to the purchaser at the time of purchase, as the
price of the replica is included in the price of the product. Accordingly, we will not
sustain the examiner’s rejection of claim 51 under 35 U.S.C. §112, first
paragraph.
Rejection of claims 1, 4 through 7, 9, 10, 12, 14 and 15 under 35 U.S.C. §102
(a) as being anticipated by Turkel2
Initially we note that appellant, on pages 13 through 15 of the brief,
presents separate arguments for six (6) groups of claims. However, appellant’s
only argument directed to the group of claims 5, 9, and 10, states “claims 5, 9,
and 10 depend (either directly or indirectly) from claim 1, and are believed
allowable for at least the reasons set forth above with regard to claim 1.” We do
not consider this to be a separate argument under 37 C.F.R 41.37(c)(vii).
Accordingly, we will group the claims into five (5) groups. Group A consists of
2 Appellant and Examiner refer to the article authored by Tux Turkel, titled “Sweating the details
Fernwood fo Maine’s colorful, handcrafted replicas of buildings and scenes find a ready robust
market” by the title “Fernwood.”
16
Page: Previous 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007