Appeal No. 2006-1187
Application No. 10/056,832
information are the same thing. Further, appellant argues that Turkel does not
teach a registrar or that the information received associates the product and
replica with the owner. See brief page 14.
In response the examiner states, on last paragraph of page 9 through
page 10 of the answer:
The limitation of “information related to an owner of a product” is very
broad language and the examiner sees no reason why the style of home
cannot be considered as information that is related to an owner of a
product. If an owner owns a particular style of home, the information
about the home style is related to the owner because the owner owns a
house of that style.
We disagree with the examiner’s rationale. Dependent claim 6, because
of its dependency, includes the limitations of claims 1 and 5. Claim 6 recites, “a
registrar receives the product information” and “the registrar also obtains
information relating to an owner of the product to associate the product and the
replica with the owner.” In the context of the claim the “information relating to an
owner” associates the product and the replica to the owner, which is different
than the “product information relating to a visible feature of the product.” Thus,
while information relating to the style of the house may be product information as
it relates to a visible feature, we do not find that it associates the product and
replica to the owner as claimed. Accordingly, we will not sustain the examiner’s
rejection of claim 6.
19
Page: Previous 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007