Ex Parte Crone - Page 5

            Appeal 2006-2109                                                                                 
            Application 10/680,678                                                                           

        1   including a beverage - which Helbling does not teach or suggest - and asserted that              
        2   Helbling discloses selling a "reduced-portion meal" that does not include a                      
        3   beverage - which also finds no support in the disclosure of Helbling. The Appellant              
        4   concludes that this construction of Helbling can be arrived at only through the                  
        5   teaching of claims 1 and 11, using impermissible hindsight. (Br. 10).                            
        6       The Appellant further contends that there is no motivation to price the reduced-             
        7   portion meal at the price of a corresponding full-portion meal and that Helbling                 
        8   explicitly teaches against it.  The Appellant argues that even in 1996, the filing               
        9   date of the Helbling application, the price of a beverage in a fast food restaurant far          
       10   exceeded twenty-five cents. By suggesting a minimum donation level of a quarter,                 
       11   the Appellant contends that Helbling teaches that the minimum donation must be a                 
       12   token amount, as compared to the price of the reward, to encourage participation.                
       13   The Appellant concludes that making the minimum donation amount equal to the                     
       14   price of the beverage, as the Examiner suggested, would discourage rather than                   
       15   encourage participation, whereas the purpose of Helbling is to maximize                          
       16   participation.  As well known in retailing, if a customer does not perceive he is                
       17   getting something "free," or at the very least at a substantial discount, he will not            
       18   participate in a promotion.  The Appellant cites In re Gordon, 733 F.2d 900 (Fed.                
       19   Cir. 1984) for the proposition that if a proposed modification would render the                  
       20   prior art invention being modified unsatisfactory for its intended purpose, then                 
       21   there is no suggestion or motivation to make the proposed modification. (Brief 11-               
       22   12).                                                                                             
       23       The Appellant further contends that Helbling itself teaches away from retaining              
       24   a processing fee from the donation.  The Appellant argues that, at its core, Helbling            
       25   relies on the generosity of the restaurant in providing a free beverage to customers             

                                                      5                                                      


Page:  Previous  1  2  3  4  5  6  7  8  9  10  11  12  13  14  15  Next

Last modified: September 9, 2013