Ex Parte KazimDownload PDFBoard of Patent Appeals and InterferencesFeb 15, 201111052653 (B.P.A.I. Feb. 15, 2011) Copy Citation UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE ____________ BEFORE THE BOARD OF PATENT APPEALS AND INTERFERENCES ____________ Ex parte ESKANDER KAZIM ____________ Appeal 2010-001857 Application 11/052,653 Technology Center 3600 ____________ Before MURRIEL E. CRAWFORD, HUBERT C. LORIN, and BIBHU R. MOHANTY, Administrative Patent Judges. MOHANTY, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL1 1 The two-month time period for filing an appeal or commencing a civil action, as recited in 37 C.F.R. § 1.304, or for filing a request for rehearing, as recited in 37 C.F.R. § 41.52, begins to run from the “MAIL DATE” (paper delivery mode) or the “NOTIFICATION DATE” (electronic delivery mode) shown on the PTOL-90A cover letter attached to this decision. Appeal 2010-001857 Application 11/052,653 2 STATEMENT OF THE CASE The Appellant seeks our review under 35 U.S.C. § 134 (2002) of the final rejection of claims 1-13 and 15-19 which are all the claims pending in the application. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b) (2002). SUMMARY OF THE DECISION We REVERSE. THE INVENTION The Appellant’s claimed invention is directed a system to deliver a digital good from a seller to a buyer (Spec. [0005]). Claim 1, reproduced below with the numbering in brackets added, is representative of the subject matter of appeal. 1. A system to deliver a digital good from a seller to a buyer, the system including: [1] an interface to receive a digital goods package from the seller, the digital goods package including the digital good and a buyer identifier; [2] digital goods storage to store the digital goods package; an identifier extractor to extract the buyer identifier from the digital goods package; and a notifier to notify the buyer, based on the buyer identifier, that the digital good has been received from the seller and is ready to be collected by the buyer, wherein, after having sent the notification that the digital good is ready to be collected, the system allows the buyer to access and retrieve the digital good. Appeal 2010-001857 Application 11/052,653 3 THE REJECTIONS The Examiner relies upon the following as evidence in support of the rejections: Kobata US 2003/0023695 A1 Jan. 30, 2003 Maari US 2004/0073451 A1 Apr. 15, 2004 Brentano US 2005/0033652 A1 Feb. 10, 2005 The following rejections are before us for review: 1. Claims 1-2, 5-9, 12-13, 15-16, and 18-192 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Maari and Brentano. 2. Claims 3-4, 10-11, and 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Maari, Brentano, and Kobata. THE ISSUES With regards to claims 1-7, the issue turns on whether the cited prior art discloses claim limitation [1] cited above. With regards to claims 8-13 and 15-19 the issue turns on whether the cited prior art discloses a similar claim limitation. FINDINGS OF FACT We find the following enumerated findings of fact (FF) are supported at least by a preponderance of the evidence:3 2 The Appellants have indicated that claim 14 was cancelled in the Appeal Brief (Brief, 4). 3 See Ethicon, Inc. v. Quigg, 849 F.2d 1422, 1427 (Fed. Cir. 1988) (explaining the general evidentiary standard for proceedings before the Patent Office). Appeal 2010-001857 Application 11/052,653 4 FF1. Maari has disclosed a method of controlling digital content and a method of reproducing digital content (Title). FF2. Maari discloses that in Fig. 16 that the controller 16 is part of the player 1 [0148]. Maari at Fig. 2 also discloses the controller 16 is part of the player 1. Maari discloses that the user 200 has a digital content reproducing apparatus (player 1) [0052]. FF3. Maari at [0150] discloses that the controller 16 generates the ID of the digital content. The controller 16 adds the user ID read to the generated data and sends it to the user terminal 50. FF4. Maari at Figs. 13, 15-16, [0131-0134], and [0167] does not specifically disclose an interface to receive a digital goods package from the seller with the digital goods package including the digital good and a buyer identifier. ANALYSIS The Appellant argues that the rejection of claim 1 is improper because the cited prior art fails to disclose claim limitation [1] identified above (Br. 9-10, Reply Br. 2-3). In contrast, the Examiner has determined that Maari discloses the cited claim limitation at Figs. 13, 15-16, [0131-0134], and [0167] (Ans. 3, 6). We agree with the Appellant. Claim limitation [1] requires: “an interface to receive a digital goods package from the seller, the digital goods package including the digital good and a buyer identifier” (claim 1). Appeal 2010-001857 Application 11/052,653 5 Thus the claim requires in part an interface to receive from a seller a digital goods package which includes a buyer identifier in some manner. Maari has disclosed at [0150] that the controller 16 generates an user ID (FF3) but the controller 16 has been shown to actually be part of the user’s player 1 (FF2) so the user ID referred to is not “received from the seller” since it is generated by the user’s player 1 itself. The other cited portions of Maari fail to specifically disclose claim limitation [1] as well (FF4). For these reasons the rejection of claim 1 and its dependent claims is not sustained. Independent claims 8 and 15 contain a similar limitation and the rejection of these claims, and their dependent claims, is not sustained for these same reasons. DECISION The Examiner’s rejection of claims 1-13 and 15-19 is reversed. REVERSED MP SCHWEGMAN, LUNDBERG & WOESSNER/EBAY P.O. BOX 2938 MINNEAPOLIS MN 55402 Copy with citationCopy as parenthetical citation