Appeal 2006-2109
Application 10/680,678
1 It is well understood that in dealing with a charity, giving is the underlying
2 function for the people involved with the process. For a majority of those people
3 who give, sacrifice is an integral part of this process. That is, taking less for
4 oneself in order to give more for another is how charity works.
5 The individual in Helbling could have ordered, or was capable of ordering
6 something of less value /size in order to give as his contribution to charity the
7 difference in price between what he really wanted to eat, e.g. a full portion meal,
8 and what he actually ordered, e.g., a reduced portion meal. See, In re Schreiber, 44
9 USPQ2d 1429 (CAFC 1973) at 1434. Thus, in Helbling, an actual order, for
10 example, of a single patty hamburger placed by the patron could be read as a
11 “reduced meal portion”, because the patron’s original intent could have been to
12 order a double cheeseburger, but on upon entering the fast food facility and seeing
13 the invitation to contribute, the patron changes his mind and buys less to
14 accommodate his intended contribution. The patron then contributes to the charity
15 based on what he would have otherwise have paid for the double cheeseburger
16 minus the price of the lesser sized single burger actually purchased, thereby
17 answering the limitations of claim 1.
18 I cannot see anything new or unobvious in an act of charity so unconstrained
19 by any other claim limitation which would take it out of the public domain.
20
21 JRG
22 COATS & BENNETT, PLLC
23 1400 Crescent Green, Suite 300
24 Cary, NC 27518
21
Page: Previous 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21
Last modified: September 9, 2013