Appeal 2006-2635
Application 09/935,287
from responses to a voice-prompt system as in claim 2. Since we find no
teaching or suggestion of a standard identification code for the ad, or the
good for sale, we cannot sustain the rejection of claims 3 and 23, nor of their
dependents, claims 4, 5, 8, 21, 22, and 24 through 32.
As to claim 6, Appellants assert (Br. 10) that "Lalonde is devoid of
any disclosure of presenting a good for sale using information provided by
the seller and information related to the good that has been retrieved from a
database." Lalonde, however, discloses (col. 4, ll. 38-68) an ad database
with several fields including geographic area, asking price, number of
bedrooms, etc. The information from the fields is retrieved, and the specific
information from the seller is added, and the result is presented as the ad.
Thus, Lalonde presents a good for sale using information provided by the
seller and information related to the good that has been retrieved from the
database. Accordingly, we will sustain the rejection of claim 6.
Claim 7 recites that the presentation of the good for sale is performed
in real time. Appellants assert (Br. 11) that Lalonde "is completely silent in
this regard." Lalonde states (col. 3, ll. 8-10) that "because there is no
separate index creation step, new ads are instantly available, creating a real
time system." Therefore, we will sustain the rejection of claim 7.
Claims 9 and 10 include the steps of retrieving from a database and
providing a recommended sale price to the seller and receiving a selected
price or an acceptance of the recommended price. Appellants contend (Br.
12-13) that Lalonde fails to disclose retrieving sale price information from a
database during the listing of the good for sale. The Examiner argues
(Answer 5) that sellers often check prices, such as a Blue Book value of a
used car, before determining an asking price. The Examiner contends
6
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013