Appeal No. 2006-1187
Application No. 10/056,832
Turkel. See Final Office action mailed August 11, 2005. Appellant has not
challenged this finding by the examiner and we find that the examiner’s equating
of the bank with the merchant of the product is proper as banks often sell
property (e.g. foreclosure sales). Further, the examiner has interpreted the term
“purchase” to include the act of receiving something bestowed. We find that
appellant’s specification supports this claim interpretation. Appellant’s
specification, in the paragraph bridging pages 2 and 3 states:
The terms “purchase,” “purchases,” “purchased” and “purchasing” are
used herein to generally mean “an exchange for value” and includes the
concepts of buying, leasing, bartering and/or bestowing. In the case of a
bestowed product, it should be appreciated that there is still an exchange
of value because the person bestowing product 4 receives good will in
return for the bestowed product.
Thus, appellant’s arguments have not convinced us of error in the examiner’s
rejection of claim 1. Accordingly, we sustain he examiner’s rejection of claim 1
and the claims grouped therewith, claims 4 and 5.
Group B (rejection under 35 U.S.C. 102).
Appellant states that claim 6 recites the registrar obtaining information to
the owner of the product to associate the product and the replica with the owner.
See brief pages 13 and 14. Appellant asserts that the examiner’s determination
that the information of what the replica is to look like, is information related to an
owner of the product is flawed. Appellant reasons that the examiner’s
determination is flawed because it concludes that product information and owner
18
Page: Previous 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007