Appeal Number: 2007-0126
Application Number: 09/970,910
OPINION
In reaching our decision in this appeal, we have given careful consideration to
the appellants’ specification and claims, to the applied prior art references, and to
the respective positions articulated by the appellants and the examiner. As a
consequence of our review, we make the determinations that follow.
Claims 1 through 16, 18 through 24, 26 and 27 rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a)
as obvious over Nakfoor and Walker.
We note that the appellants argue these claims as a group. Accordingly, we
select claim 1 as representative of the group.
The examiner has applied Nakfoor to the claimed subject matter as showing
exchange of tickets in an automated system. Nakfoor is silent as to messages
confirming the exchange, and the examiner has applied Walker to show the
notoriety of such confirming messages.
The appellants argue that Nakfoor sells rather than exchanges tickets.
While Nakfoor teaches that tickets may be traded in the secondary
market using an exchange- type format, the description of the
exchange-type format makes it clear that it is a process like that used
at the New York Stock Exchange for arriving at an agreed sale price
between buyer and seller. In the exchange-type format described in
the Nakfoor reference, sellers advertise an 'ask' price that they want to
receive for their tickets, while buyers advertise a 'bid' price that they
are willing to pay for tickets. When any buyer's bid price meets or
exceeds a seller's ask price, the system of Nakfoor consummates the
sale of that seller's tickets to that buyer. (Nakfoor, Column 4, Lines
25-34). In short, the Nakfoor reference teaches a method and system
for selling tickets.
(Br. 8-9).
4
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013