Appeal 2006-3156
Application 09/904,311
SUMMARY OF DECISION
As a consequence of our review, we will reverse the obviousness
rejection of claims 22 through 47. We also remand for the Examiner to
review the claims for statutory subject matter under 35 U.S.C. § 101 in view
of the Interim Guidelines for Examination of Patent Applications for Patent
Subject Matter Eligibility (1300 Off. Gaz. Pat. Office 142 (Nov. 22, 2005)).
ISSUE
The Examiner rejects independent claims 22, 26, 30, 34, 39, and 42 as
being obvious over Bansal in view of Hogg. Specifically, the Examiner asserts
(Answer 3-4) that Bansal discloses a method for determining a bidder's risk
attitude, but does not disclose determining a bidder's private information from
bids submitted in utility-independent auctions. The Examiner further asserts
(Answer 4) that Hogg discloses the step of determining a bidder's private
information. The Examiner contends (Answer 4) that it would have been
obvious to include in Bansal's method determining private information
"because Hogg et al teaches that important information may be gathered from
such information in any auction (para 0005) and because Hogg et al teaches
variability in information needed (para 0024)."
Appellants contend (Br. 12) that "'risk attitude' refers to an unknown or
unobservable element of the market structure of an auction that represents the
attitude of bidders toward risk" and that Bansal does not disclose determining
risk attitudes. Further, Appellants contend (Br. 13) that the Examiner has
failed to provide sufficient motivation to combine the cited references. The
sole issue in this case is whether the Examiner established a prima facie case of
obviousness over Bansal and Hogg.
3
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013