Appeal 2007-2370
Application 09/373,141
1 obviousness. The Appellant further contends that Shkedy has no use for discount
2 data (Br. 15:Bottom ¶).
3 We find that Shkedy explicitly describes the sellers providing discount rates
4 (FF 16 & 17). We find that whether computing discount rates are mathematically
5 complex is therefore moot.
6 The Appellant then contends, in response to the Examiner’s finding one of
7 ordinary skill would have known that Shkedy’s title could as readily have been
8 “REVERSE AUCTION,” based on the Appellant’s admitted prior art, that the title
9 of a reference does not form the basis of an obviousness rejection.
10 We find that (1) the Appellant’s disclosure admits that Shkedy’s transaction
11 could be characterized as a reverse auction (FF 08), and (2) the Examiner’s only
12 purpose in relying on Appellant’s Admitted Prior Art was to show that Shkedy
13 described an auction, which Shkedy does by virtue of its matching of bids and
14 offers by buyers and sellers. The issue of whether a title of a reference may form
15 the basis of an obviousness rejection is therefore moot.
16 The Appellant contends that claims 32-62 are separately patentable (Br.
17 16:Bottom ¶), but does not provide any arguments supporting their patentability
18 separate from those made in support of claim 1. As such, we find that Shkedy
19 discloses all of the elements of independent claim 32 for the same reasons provided
20 supra for claim 1.
21 The Appellant has not sustained its burden of showing that the Examiner erred
22 in rejecting claims 1-62 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Shkedy and
23 the Appellant's admitted prior art.
13
Page: Previous 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013