Appeal 2007-1554
Application 10/844,387
overemphasis on the importance of published articles and
the explicit content of issued patents.
KSR, 127 S.Ct. at 1741, 82 USPQ2d at 1396. Rather, the application of common
sense may control the reasoning to combine prior art teachings. See KSR, 127
S.Ct. at 1742, 82 USPQ2d at 1397.
Appellants further argue that “modifying ROBINSON so that ‘details in the
transaction record are protected from modification by the parties to the transaction’
would destroy the teachings of ROBINSON which are directed to leaving such
matters under the control of the merchant” (Br. 8). However we do not see how
the process of Robinson would be destroyed by such a modification. In fact, it
would be enhanced because Robinson describes as an object of the invention to
resolve disputes between a merchant and a customer where “neither the merchant
nor the customer trusts the accuracy of the other's private records” (Robinson,
col. 2, ll. 11-13). The Robinson process as modified, supra, by Ginter which
removes the issue of trust as between buyer and seller as to the specifics of the
purchase, would answer the exact problem faced by Robinson.
Appellants do not provide arguments as to the separate patentability of
claims 36-39, 42, 43 and 49 that depend from claim 34, which is the sole
independent claim among those claims. Claims 36-39, 42, 43 and 49 thus fall with
claim 34. See 37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(1)(vii)(2004).
19
Page: Previous 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013