Appeal No. 2004-2085
Application 09/272,542
Appellants argue that claim 1 covers the situation where
products are bought or sold by the order, whereas Harrington has
no such analogy (B16).
That the term "order" is broad enough to cover both "buy"
orders and "sell" orders, but does not require both "buy" and
"sell" orders. A reference that teaches a only "sell" order
meets the "order" limitation. Claim 1 does not recite a
"contra-side order."
Appellants argue (Br17) that Harrington does not suggest the
limitation "matching the order with a first one of the responses
that meets all of the conditions specified by the order during
the exposure time ... with matching of the first one of the
responses with the order terminating the auction." It is argued
that Harrington waits until the auction ends and awards winning
bids based on the best true interest cost (TIC) and according to
the end time of the auction, not the conditions specified in the
order (Br17). It is noted that while other types of auctions are
mentioned in the background, such as a "Dutch flower auction,"
Harrington teaches away from using such a mechanism (Br17).
The examiner finds that the "Dutch flower auction" in the
background is the type of auction where the first to accept an
order wins and that one skilled in the art would have knowledge
of the different methods for conducting an auction (EA14-15).
The examiner concludes that it would have been obvious for the
- 13 -
Page: Previous 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007