Appeal No. 2005-0131
Application 09/731,388
II. Whether the Rejections of Claims 14-20, 33-39, 41, and 43
Under 35 U.S.C. § 102 and 35 U.S.C. § 103 are proper?
It is our view, after consideration of the record before us,
that the disclosure of Eisenhart does fully meet the invention as
recited in claims 14-16, 33-35, 41, and 43, and that the evidence
relied upon and the level of skill in the particular art would
have suggested to one of ordinary skill in the art the invention
as set forth in claims 17-20 and 36-39. Accordingly, we affirm.
With respect to independent claim 14, Appellants argue at
page 9 of the brief, “Eisenhart [‘600], however neither teaches
nor suggests the functionality of the electronic marketplace
recited in claim 14” and “[the hub of Eisenhart] has no privacy
policy of its own.” We find Appellants’ argument unpersuasive.
We have reviewed claim 14 and find no functionality recited
for the marketplace. We note that all of the method steps in
claim 14 are silent as to the party performing a given step.
Contrary to Appellants assertion that the claim requires the
marketplace (hub) to establish a privacy policy with the buyer as
to information the buyer will reveal to the marketplace in
connection with a transaction, the claim language merely requires
that a first party establish a privacy policy with a second party
as to information the buyer will reveal to the marketplace in
10
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007