Appeal 2007-2370
Application 09/373,141
1 commensurate with the scope of claim 1. Claim 1 [2.a.] recites a commitment to
2 buy an undiscounted monetary amount of an item at a minimum discount rate.
3 Shkedy’s buyer commits (FF 10) to a quantity of an item (FF 13) that has an
4 undiscounted price listed in the seller’s schedule (FF 17). Thus, Shkedy’s buyer
5 has a commitment to buy a quantity of items having an undiscounted price. This is
6 a commitment to buy an undiscounted amount, viz. the product of quantity times
7 undiscounted price, of that item. Shkedy’s buyer has a discount set by the
8 intermediary (FF 09), which the buyer may modify by indicating the buyer’s own
9 minimum discount (FF 15).
10 Since Shkedy describes this claim limitation, there are no differences, and
11 therefore no benefits of differences, for the Examiner to consider.
12 The Appellant further argues that the contended differences enable the
13 separation of the transaction from the process of selecting the exact variations or
14 options of the item purchased, and provides examples from the Specification.
15 From this, the Appellant further contends that Shkedy teaches away from the
16 claimed invention (Br. 13:Second ¶).
17 We find that claim 1 recites no separation of the transaction from the process of
18 selecting the exact variations or options of the item purchased (FF 04). Whether
19 the Specification provides examples is moot. We do not import limitations from
20 the specification into the claims. See E-Pass Techs., 343 F.3d at 1369. Since there
21 is no such claimed separation, whether Shkedy teaches away from such a
22 separation is moot.
23 The Appellant further contends that the invention’s use of an undiscounted
24 monetary amount as opposed to exact price, and the invention’s use of a category
11
Page: Previous 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013