Appeal No. 2006-1050
Application No. 09/852,831
THE REJECTION AT ISSUE
Claims 1 through 26 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
obvious over Alaia. The examiner’s rejection is set forth on pages 4 and 5 of the
answer. Throughout the opinion, we make reference to the brief and the answer
for the respective details thereof.
OPINION
We have carefully considered the subject matter on appeal, the rejection
advanced by the examiner and the evidence of obviousness relied upon by the
examiner as support for the rejection. We have, likewise, reviewed and taken
into consideration, in reaching our decision, appellants’ arguments set forth in the
brief along with the examiner’s rationale in support of the rejection and
arguments in rebuttal set forth in the examiner’s answer.
With full consideration being given to the subject matter on appeal, the
examiner’s rejection and the arguments of appellants and the examiner, for the
reasons stated infra we will not sustain the examiner’s rejection of claims 1
through 26 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a).
Appellants argue on page 6 of the brief, that Alaia teaches a buyer offered
auction not a seller offered auction such as claimed and that the dynamics of
each type auction are different. Appellants assert that the break in Alaia’s
auction brought about by the “pending” status does not meet the appellants’
invention which enables uninterrupted bidding of an item in order to obtain a bid
3
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007