Appeal 2007-2070
Application 10/123,457
1 STATEMENT OF CASE
2 Brian J. Sobecks, James F. Macnamara, Jr., and Dragon Filipovic (Appellants)
3 seek review under 35 U.S.C. § 134 of a final rejection of claims 1-66, the only
4 claims pending in the application on appeal.
5 We have jurisdiction over the appeal pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 6(b) (2002).
6 We REVERSE as to the claims rejected under anticipation and REMAND as to
7 all of the claims.
8 The Appellants invented a concise display of products from a product source
9 positioned at points of retail consumer purchasing decisions (and typically within a
10 physical retailing establishment that is not owned and operated by the product
11 source but rather by a third party) and a dynamic display disposed proximal to this
12 product display. The display conveys information for building a product-source-to-
13 consumer relationship for a product source. For example, product applications,
14 product features, product content, product manufacturing information, product
15 recall information, promotional opportunities, information regarding the product
16 source, and various kinds of consumer entertainment and diversions may be
17 conveyed. A representative of the product source can physically visit the display of
18 products and provide updated informational content to keep the informational
19 content fresh to maintain an effective marketing presence (Specification 4:9-24).
20 An understanding of the invention can be derived from a reading of exemplary
21 claim 1, which is reproduced in the analysis below.
22 This appeal arises from the Examiner’s Final Rejection, mailed March 6, 2006.
23 The Appellants filed an Appeal Brief in support of the appeal on September 25,
2
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013