Appeal No. 2006-1187
Application No. 10/056,832
teaches the limitations of claim 7, nor do we find that Turkel provides suggestions
which makes claim 7 obvious. Thus, for the reasons recited supra with respect to
claim 7 we will not sustain the examiner’s rejection of claims 11, 13, 16 through
18, 20, 22, 25, 29 and 30 under 35 U.S.C. § 103.
Claims 49 and 52.
Appellant provides separate arguments for claims 49 and 52, however as
they deal with the same issue we will treat them together.
Appellant asserts, on page 22 of the brief, that claim 49 recites a
certificate of ownership, which “associates the replica with the owner.” Appellant
asserts, on page 20 of the brief, that claim 52 recites, “causing the creation of a
certificate of ownership associating the owner with the replica.” Appellant, on
page 20 of the brief, argues:
Nothing in the Fernwood article (or any of the other cited art) teaches,
suggests, or even hints at the creation or transfer of a certificate of
ownership as claimed. The Examiner contends that a receipt of sale of a
replica would be obvious in view of the Fernwood article. (the Final Action,
pg. 14). A receipt, however, is not a certificate of ownership that
associates the owner with the replica.
In response, the examiner states, on page 13 of the answer:
[A] receipt is a proof of purchase and does indicate ownership. A person
holding a receipt to an article has proof of its sale and is an indication of
ownership. Because receipts are given to the purchaser, a person with no
receipt would not be considered as the owner.
We disagree with the examiner’s rationale. Initially, we note that we
concur with the examiner’s assessment that a receipt is a proof of purchase and
24
Page: Previous 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007