Appeal 2007-3540
Application 09/946,616
1 one. If a person of ordinary skill [in the art] can implement a predictable variation,
2 § 103 likely bars its patentability.” Id. at 1740, 82 USPQ2d at 1396.
3 “For the same reason, if a technique has been used to improve one device, and
4 a person of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that it would improve similar
5 devices in the same way, using the technique is obvious unless its actual
6 application is beyond his or her skill.” Id.
7 “Under the correct analysis, any need or problem known in the field of
8 endeavor at the time of invention and addressed by the patent can provide a reason
9 for combining the elements in the manner claimed.” Id. at 1742, 82 USPQ2d at
10 1397.
11 ANALYSIS
12 Claims 1, 11-13, 32, 50-54, and 57 rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 102(e) as
13 anticipated by Bogosian.
14 Claims 1 and 32
15 The Appellants argue claims 1 and 32 as a group.
16 Accordingly, we select claim 1 as representative of the group.
17 37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c(1)(vii) (2006).
18 Claim 1 reads as follows [bracketed matter, including reference to Findings of
19 Fact in support of anticipation, and some paragraphing added].
20 1. A method
21 for automatically effecting payment for a user
22 of an electronic auction web site
23 maintained by an electronic auction system [see FF 08],
24 said method comprising the steps of:
11
Page: Previous 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013