Appeal No. 2006-1187
Application No. 10/056,832
disclosure of the owner and the replica manufacturer having a contact, nor would
it seem that the replica manufacturer would need to know to whom the bank is
giving the replica. Thus, we do not find that Turkel, either expressly or through
the principals of inherency teaches the limitations of claim 7 and we will not
sustain the examiner’s rejection of claim 7 under 35 U.S.C. §102. Claims 9, 10,
12, 14 and 15 all depend directly or indirectly upon claim 7. Thus, we will not
sustain the examiner’s rejection of claims 9, 10, 12, 14 and 15 under 35 U.S.C.
§102 for the reasons stated supra with respect to claim 7.
Rejection of claims 33 through 39 and 45 under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) as
anticipated over Officially Noticed facts concerning two computers
connected by the Internet.
Appellant argues that the “wherein” clause of claim 33 is ignored by the
examiner as the examiner improperly considered it to be a statement of intended
use. See brief page 16. Appellant asserts that claim 33’s limitation “wherein the
merchant computing device is configured to receive product information relating
to a visible feature of a product purchased by the purchaser, the received product
information being transferred as a replica order over the network to a replica
manufacturer computing device, thereby enabling a replica including the visible
feature of the product to be transferred to the purchaser” is a functional limitation.
Appellant argues that the examiner has presented no evidence that “the
functional limitation of transferring information relating to a visible feature of a
product as a replica order to a replica manufacturer computing device to
21
Page: Previous 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007