Appeal Number: 2007-0126
Application Number: 09/970,910
The appellants argue that Walker may not be combined with Nakfoor for the
reasons articulated by the examiner because the motivational teachings asserted by
the examiner to be present in Walker (legally binding steps and, with respect to
claims 24, 26 and 27, a barter environment) are too broad to form a prima facie
case of obviousness. (Br. 11-14).
The examiner essentially responds that Walker demonstrates the notoriety of
both transmission of affirming messages and barter, such that a person of ordinary
skill in the art would have immediately envisaged such activities as additional and
alternative steps to the processes set forth in Nakfoor. We agree that both the use
of transmission of affirming messages and barter are notoriously well known, for
which Walker provides evidence. And we further note that Walker, on its face, in
its title (Method and Apparatus for a Cryptographically Assisted Commercial
Network System Designed to Facilitate Buyer-Driven Conditional Purchase
Offers), suggests its use in any buyer driven conditional purchase offer such as that
in Nakfoor. Once a person of ordinary skill in the art looked to Walker, to provide
the security that Walker suggests is appropriate for systems such as in Nakfoor, the
portion of Walker suggesting to a person of ordinary skill in the art the use of
barter, in col. 30, in some embodiments, would have fairly suggested substitution
of second tickets for cash as the medium of exchange for the first tickets.
Therefore, we find the appellants’ arguments to be unpersuasive.
7
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013