Appeal 2006-2109
Application 10/680,678
1 ISSUES
2 Helbling alone
3 The Examiner finds that Helbling discloses facilitating charitable giving by a
4 restaurant, including: selling a reduced portion meal product (i.e., meal without a
5 beverage, since beverages are free with donation) at a customer price higher than
6 the reduced portion meal price (i.e., reduced meal price plus excess minimum
7 donation amount), transferring the excess amount to a charity on behalf of the
8 customer.
9 The Examiner finds that Helbling lacks the teaching of the customer price
10 corresponding to the full-portion meal product price (i.e., reduced portion meal
11 price plus beverage price) and transferring only part of the excess amount to
12 charity.
13 The Examiner concluded that it would have been an obvious design choice at
14 the time of the invention to have the customer price correspond to the full portion
15 meal price (i.e., have the minimum donation amount equal the beverage price) in
16 order for the charities to receive more money without the customers feeling like
17 they've overpaid. (Final Rejection 3).
18 The Examiner further finds, specifically regarding claims 1, 4, 11, and 20, that
19 it is well known in business for a company to receive a processing fee for work
20 performed, and therefore, the Examiner concludes that it would have been obvious
21 to one of ordinary skill in the art to transfer only part of the excess amount to
22 charity. (Final Rejection 4).
23 The Appellant contends that Helbling does not teach or suggest full- or
24 reduced-portion meal products. The Appellant argues that in rejecting claims 1
25 and 11, the Examiner constructed a purely hypothetical "full-portion meal"
4
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013