Appeal 2007-2312
Application 09/681,815
asset (FF 8) and, at that point in time of use, the predetermined time period could
not have elapsed. Common sense tells us that once the user updates the record to
change the ownership to another, then privileges tied to that user will expire. See
KSR, 127 S. Ct. at 1742, 82 USPQ2d at 1397. As Kanter’s badge is tied to a
specific user uniquely (FF1), privileges tied to that badge or card would logically
expire upon change of ownership. Whether the loss of privileges occurs because
no update is made by the user before time expires, as claimed, or occurs because
the user has affirmatively inputted an updated change of ownership causing the
period to expire as of the time of the update, is not seen to be a patentable
difference. In either case, the predetermined time period expires as the result of a
change of ownership caused by some required action of the user.
Regarding claims 2 and 14, Appellant argues Kanter and DeWolf fail to
contemplate “updating an ownership attribute associated with the vehicle asset
record.” (Rvsd Arg., 4) We disagree. DeWolf discloses a system which involves:
(1) “[t]ransactions, regarding the exchange of ownership rights” (FF 7), and (2)
that the owner 116 may update data about the asset (FF 5). Thus, the requirements
of claims 2 and 14 are met by at least these items in DeWolf. We therefore sustain
the rejection of claims 2 and 14 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable
over Kanter in view of DeWolf.
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
We conclude that Appellant has not shown that the Examiner erred in
rejecting claims 1-23 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Kanter and
DeWolf.
9
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013