Appeal No. 2004-2289
Application No. 09/825,337
webpage. According to Bezos, an “associate” may be, for example, an
internet-based product reviewer or a recommendation service. Bezos
fails to teach or suggest that the “associate” could be a product-
vendor. Like Tavor, Bezos discloses only one vendor.
Further, Appellants argue:
Each of the claims also requires transferring a sales commission from
a sales account of one vendor to a sales account of a second vendor.
Neither of these features recited in claims 1, 5, 9 and 14 are found in
Bezos. As mentioned, each of these features requires and pre-
assumes a system including at least two vendors. Bezos specifically
discloses that the website of the “associate” is an information
dissemination system including marketing information such as product
reviews or recommendations.
The examiner in response, on pages 6 and 7 of the answer, states:
Regarding the argument that Tavor et al. fail to disclose all of
the features recited by the claims of Group I, the argument is
irrelevant, hence spurious, as the same shortcomings alleged by
appellant were specifically pointed out in, and addressed by, the
rejection. Therefore, the argument merely restates the facts admitted
by the rejection, without pointing out any supposed or alleged error in
the rejection, thus, should be disregarded.
Regarding the argument that Bezos et al. fail to remedy the
deficiencies of Tavor et al. because Bezos et al. disclose only a single
“vendor,” since the second entity they disclose is characterized by
them as an “associate” rather than literally/explicitly as a second
“vendor,” Bezos et al. indeed disclose a first vendor and a second
vendor… Inasmuch as an “associate” is commonly defined and
accepted to mean a person united with another or others in an act, an
enterprise, or a business, and, as admitted by appellant, the first
entity/vendor of Bezos et al. is indeed engaged in the act of selling,
any “associate” of that vendor is then, by definition, united with the first
entity/vendor in that act of selling. Therefore, the “associate” is a
second entity engaged in the act of selling, hence, a second vendor.
(emphasis original, citations omitted).
We disagree with the examiner’s rationale. Claim 9 includes the limitations of
“relevant-item catalogue information relating to an item relevant to the specific item;”
4
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007