Appeal 2007-2370
Application 09/373,141
1 to arrange or settle by discussion and mutual agreement. As the Examiner found,
2 eCommerce explicitly describes negotiating for discounts (FF18), and the business
3 model described as similar to eBay (FF 19) implies that negotiation would be with
4 multiple sellers to achieve a better price than negotiating with a single seller.
5 Further, Shkedy describes discounts from multiple sellers (FF 12, 15, and 16).
6 The Appellant further contends that eCommerce does not describe analyzing
7 the bids to present information to sellers indicating aggregate amounts
8 (Br. 18:Bottom ¶).
9 The Examiner responds that such analysis is implied for there would be no
10 other way for sellers to develop a discount rate. We agree with the Examiner and
11 we also find that such analysis is implicit in Shkedy’s presentation of its purchase
12 order indicating aggregate amounts of the purchase order to sellers (FF 09).
13 The Appellant has not sustained its burden of showing that the Examiner erred
14 in rejecting claim 63 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Shkedy,
15 eCommerce, and the Appellant's admitted prior art.
16 CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
17 The Appellant has not sustained its burden of showing that the Examiner erred
18 in rejecting claims 1-63 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over the prior
19 art.
20 On this record, the Appellant is not entitled to a patent containing claims 1-63.
21 DECISION
22 To summarize, our decision is as follows:
16
Page: Previous 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013