Appeal No. 2006-0659 Παγε 3
Application No. 10/370,237
expressly or inherently described, in a single prior art reference. Verdegaal Bros. Inc. v.
Union Oil Co., 814 F.2d 628, 631, 2 USPQ2d 1051, 1053 (Fed. Cir.), cert. denied,
484 U.S. 827 (1987).
The examiner's findings regarding the rejection as it applies to claim 1 can be
found on page 3 of the answer.
The appellant argues that Pallakoff does not describe "offering a product for sale
to select buyers in a private deal room, access which is being limited at least in part to
buyers who accept a seller's terms and conditions" (claim 1, lines 2 to 3).
We agree with the appellant and thus we will not sustain this rejection.
As described in appellant's specification, the method of the present invention
limits access to a private deal room to buyers who have registered. This registration
process includes providing personal information such as name and address and
approval for a line of credit (specification at page 13). Once approved, a buyer is
provided with a user ID and a password which are used to gain access to a screen from
which a buyer can select one of several private deal rooms (specification at page 14).
Once the buyer selects the private deal room of interest, the buyer must agree to the
conditions set by the seller (specification at page 15). If the buyer agrees to the
conditions of the seller, they have access to a private deal room which contains an offer
to buy products including the description of the products, minimum order quantity, price
etc. As such, the appellant's method offers the products for sale only to those buyers
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007