Appeal Number: 2007-0126
Application Number: 09/970,910
As to claim 24, the appellants also argue that neither reference describes
brokering an exchange at a public facility. The appellants are apparently noting
with particularity the distinction between this claim limitation and the limitation in
claim 1 of “to public-facility patrons.” We note that the limitation “at a public
facility” is not a limitation of the step that is performed, but only of the location
where the step is performed. “[T]he steps comprising the process are the essential
features for consideration in determining the right of appellants to a patent – not
the particular material to which the process is applied nor the particular substance
obtained by its application.” In re Fahrni, 41 C.C.P.A. 768, 771, 210 F.2d 302,
303, 100 U.S.P.Q. (BNA) 388, 390 (C.C.P.A. 1954). The location of a step has
even less bearing on a process step than the input and output materials. The
limitation of “at a public facility” is a mere field of use limitation, and deserves no
patentable weight in a process claim.
We next note that, were any such weight to be given this limitation, Nakfoor
suggests that the public facility might provide the exchange capability in the
assignments of user roles in col. 5 lines 50-52, which include venue management.
Certainly, a person of ordinary skill in the art would have envisaged the facility
where an event is to occur as among the set of locations ticket holders would likely
be when exchanging tickets, i.e. it is an immediately envisaged species of the
genus of transaction locations, and there is nothing particularly unusual about the
result of the claimed steps irrespective of where the parties are located.
Accordingly we sustain the examiner's rejection of claims 1 through 16, 18
through 24, 26 and 27 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as obvious over Nakfoor and
Walker.
8
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013