Appeal No. 2005-0131
Application 09/731,388
the compatibility of one party’s privacy preferences with the
other party’s privacy policy.” We find these arguments
unpersuasive.
We find that contrary to Appellants’ arguments, page 23 of
Eisenhart ‘600 clearly teaches that with respect to an Evaluation
Request that includes an NDA there are three choices “Accept the
Request”, “Reject the Request”, “Discuss the Request.” Further,
we note that the third choice (discuss) is a negotiation, and
evaluation of the request inherently includes assessing
compatibility in order to choose among the three choices (page
22, “Supplier has the choice”).
Therefore, we will sustain the Examiner’s rejection under
35 U.S.C. § 102 and 35 U.S.C. § 103.
9
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007