Appeal 2007-2742
Application 09/764,618
1 “When a work is available in one field of endeavor, design incentives and other
2 market forces can prompt variations of it, either in the same field or [in] a different
3 one. If a person of ordinary skill [in the art] can implement a predictable variation,
4 § 103 likely bars its patentability.” (See KSR, id.). Hambrecht describes payment
5 mechanisms that are useful in an auction process (FF 22-23). The incentives for
6 collecting auction receipts exist in both Hambrecht and Bogosian, and are
7 comparable. The use of credit in all commercial transactions is so pervasive as to
8 be readily predictable. We find these incentives would have prompted the
9 predictable variation of Hambrecht’s use of credit within Bogosian.
10 The Appellants also contend that, as to claims 21, 28, and 30, the Examiner has
11 failed to describe what portion of the claims is missing from Bogosian in a
12 rejection under obviousness. The argument appears to be essentially that the
13 format of the rejection is improper by not explicitly reciting the differences
14 between the claims and Bogosian. Our reviewing court has held that “anticipation
15 is the epitome of obviousness,” Connell v. Sears, Roebuck & Co., 722 F.2d 1542,
16 1548, 220 USPQ 193, 198 (Fed. Cir. 1983). Thus, the Examiner’s findings within
17 Bogosian alone are sufficient to support a prima facie case of anticipation or
18 obviousness.
19 Independent Claim 1
20 The Appellants argue claims 1-20 as a group.
21 Accordingly, we select claim 1 as representative of the group.
22 37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(1)(vii) (2006).
23 The Examiner found that Bogosian described all of the elements of claim 1
24 except element [4.b.i.] withdrawing funds from an account not corresponding to at
25 least one of the plurality of users (Answer 3:Last full ¶ - 4:First full ¶). To
13
Page: Previous 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013