Appeal Number: 2007-0126
Application Number: 09/970,910
Claims 17, 25 and 28 rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as obvious over Nakfoor,
Walker, Peters and Senga.
Claims 17 and 25 are dependent claims against which the examiner applied
Peters to show presenting seat views, and claim 28 is a dependent claim against
which the examiner applied Senga to show prioritizing the exchange.
The appellants argue there is no motivation to combine Peters and Senga with
Nakfoor. (Br. 15-17). We note that Senga provides such motivation as
in facilitating a purchase wisher to get a chance of purchasing a
commodity at his desired lowest possible price and also in facilitating
a seller to get a chance of selling the same commodity as much as
possible
(para. 0009) ) (emphasis added)
and Peters provides such motivation as
to provide a vending machine for dispensing debit cards, as well as
tickets for entertainment events available from a computerized ticket
inventory; the vending machine having the further capability of
affording user selection of ticket seat locations based on video
portrayals of actual views of entertainment events from the available
seat locations
(Col. 3 lines 18-24) (emphasis added).
As to the specific limitations, Peters describes the seat views of claims 17 and
25 as
The customer is then asked whether he/she desires to see one or more
representative views from the selected seat location to center stage,
home plate, center court, etc., as appropriate for the selected event
(step 1320). If the customer makes a "yes" keystroke, interface
9
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013