Ex Parte Miner

Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences

Sep 27, 2010

10677677 (B.P.A.I. Sep. 27, 2010)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
United States Patent and Trademark Office
Address: COMMISSIONER FOR PATENTS
P.O. Box 1450
Alexandria, Virginia 22313-1450
www.uspto.gov
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE FIRST NAMED INVENTOR ATTORNEY DOCKET NO. CONFIRMATION NO.
10/677,677 10/02/2003 Michael Andrew Miner A1492 8839
66745 7590 09/28/2010
RICHARD E. BACKUS
2792 PILLSBURY WAY
WELLINGTON, FL 33414-3408
EXAMINER
ALMATRAHI, FARIS S
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
3627
MAIL DATE DELIVERY MODE
09/28/2010 PAPER
Please find below and/or attached an Office communication concerning this application or proceeding.
The time period for reply, if any, is set in the attached communication.
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
____________

BEFORE THE BOARD OF PATENT APPEALS
AND INTERFERENCES
____________

Ex parte MICHAEL ANDREW MINER
____________

Appeal 2009-014013
Application 10/677,677
Technology Center 3600
____________

Before MURRIEL E. CRAWFORD, HUBERT C. LORIN, and ANTON W.
FETTING, Administrative Patent Judges.

CRAWFORD, 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 2009-014013
Application 10/677,677

2
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Appellant seeks our review under 35 U.S.C. § 134 (2002) of the
Examiner’s final decision rejecting claim 5. We have jurisdiction over the
appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b) (2002).
We REVERSE.
Claim 5 recites:
5. A business method for sending a gift within a
wrap, the method comprising the steps of applying
an identification code to the wrap, giving the wrap
to a first user, inputting into a control system a first
input of information received from the first user
who has transferred the wrap containing one gift to
a second user, the first input of information
comprising the identification code together with
first data provided by the first user, inputting into
the control system a second input of information
from the second user to which the wrap and the
one gift have been transferred, the second input of
information comprising the identification code
together with second data provided by the second
user, employing the control system to access the
first and second inputs of information, displaying
the first and second data on a website, receiving an
other input comprising third data from a third user
to whom the wrap and an other gift have been sent,
enabling the control system to access the third
data, and displaying the third data on the website.

Appellant appeals the following rejection:
Claim 5 under 35 U.S.C. § 102(e) as anticipated by Boucher (US
6,976,007 B1, iss. Dec. 13, 2005).
Appeal 2009-014013
Application 10/677,677

3
ANALYSIS
The dispositive issue in this appeal is whether the proper construction
has been given to the language of claim 5. At issue is the following
recitation in claim 5: “receiving another input comprising third data from a
third user to whom the wrap and an other gift have been sent” (emphasis
added). This recitation is on lines 10 and 11 of claim 5. Claim 5, line 1
recites “[a] business method for sending a gift within a wrap” (emphasis
added).
We agree with the Appellant that claim 5 requires that the same wrap
that is recited in line 1 of claim 5 is recited on line 11 of the claim because
line 1 recites “a wrap” and line 11 recites “the wrap.”
As such, we agree with the Appellant that it is the same wrap at each
stage of Appellant’s method.
Boucher does not disclose that the same wrap that is used to contain a
first and second gift is also used to contain a third wrap. Specifically,
column 4, lines 40 to 47, which the Examiner relies on for teaching this
feature does not recite that a wrap is used to wrap a first, second, and third
gift.
In view of the foregoing, we will not sustain the rejection of the
Examiner.

Appeal 2009-014013
Application 10/677,677

4
DECISION
We REVERSE the Examiner’s 35 U.S.C. § 102(e) rejection.

REVERSED

hh

RICHARD E. BACKUS
2792 PILLSBURY WAY
WELLINGTON, FL 33414-3408