Ex Parte Whitcomb - Page 25



                  Appeal No. 2006-1187                                                                                          
                  Application No. 10/056,832                                                                                    

                  can be an indication of ownership, but we disagree that a person with no receipt                              
                  would not be considered an owner.  A receipt is a document showing that                                       
                  payment has been received; oftentimes when gifts are made a receipt is not                                    
                  given with the gift, yet the recipient of the gift is the owner.  In the teaching of                          
                  Turkel, it appears that the bank is giving the replica to the homeowner as a gift,                            
                  thus we do not find that Turkel necessarily requires a receipt be given to the                                
                  home purchaser.  Further, in the context of the claim, the owner is the owner of                              
                  the product (this would be the home buyer in Turkel) as such the certificate of                               
                  ownership associates the owner of the product with the replica.  A receipt for                                
                  purchasing a replica would associate the purchaser of the replica with the replica,                           
                  not the owner of the product the replica represents with the replica.  Accordingly,                           
                  we will not sustain the examiner’s rejection of either claim 49 or claim 52.                                  
                  Claim 51.                                                                                                     
                          Appellant asserts, on page 24 of the brief, that claim 51 recites the step of                         
                  “offering the purchaser at the time of the sale of the product an opportunity to                              
                  receive a replica of the product.”  Appellant argues that Turkel suggests “the                                
                  bank purchases the replicas after the houses were sold and that the bank made                                 
                  no offer to the buyers at all, but later gives the replicas as gifts.”                                        
                          In response the examiner states, on page 17 of the Final rejection mailed                             
                  April 27, 2005:                                                                                               






                                                              25                                                                



Page:  Previous  17  18  19  20  21  22  23  24  25  26  27  28  29  30  31  Next 

Last modified: November 3, 2007