Appeal No. 2005-0956 Page 4
Application No. 09/342,866
Rockoff et al. (Rockoff); “Design of an Internet-based System for Remote Dutch
Auctions”; Internet Research: Electronic Networking Applications and Policy; vol. 5,
no. 4; 1995; pp. 10-16.
Rejections At Issue
Claims 1-2, 11-15, 18-19, 25-26, 28, 30, 35-36, 39, and 41 stand rejected
under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being obvious over the combination of Goldhaber and
Marino.
Claims 3-4, 6-10, 20-23, 29, 31, and 37 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103 as being obvious over the combination of Goldhaber and Marino and
Rossides.
Claim 5 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being obvious over the
combination of Goldhaber and Marino and Rossides and Allotafun.
Claims 24, 27, 32-34, 38, and 42-44 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103
as being obvious over the combination of Goldhaber and Marino and Kelly.
Claim 40 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being obvious over the
combination of Goldhaber and Marino and Rockoff.
Claim 17 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being obvious over the
combination of Goldhaber and Marino and Kelly and Rossides.
Throughout our opinion, we make references to the Appellant’s briefs, and
to the Examiner’s Answer for the respective details thereof.1
1 Appellant filed a supplemental appeal brief (“the brief” hereinafter) on August 5,
2002, fully replacing the appeal brief filed on January 17, 2002. The Examiner
mailed an Examiner’s Answer on October 1, 2002.
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007