Appeal No. 2006-1179 Παγε 3
Application No. 10/242,532
receiving an order for the product, the order specifying a
price and quantity, and upon receiving the order starting an
auction in the distributed networked computer system for the
product by:
determining whether the received pre-defined relative
indication has a relative price that satisfies the price of the
received order; and if the price of the pre-defined relative
indication satisfies the price of the received order,
executing the received order against the pre-defined
relative indication to satisfy the order and end the auction if
the quantity in the pre-defined relative indication is sufficient
to satisfy the quantity specified in the order.
The prior art reference of record relied upon by the
examiner in rejecting the appealed claims is:
Lupien et al. (Lupien) 5,689,652 Nov. 18, 1997
Claims 41-57 and 62 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 112,
second paragraph, as being indefinite.
Claims 41-44, 46, 49, 50, 52, 53, 55-57, 59 and 63-69 stand
rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) as being clearly anticipated by
Lupien.
Claims 45, 47, 48, 51, 54 and 70-72 stand rejected under
35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Lupien.
Rather than reiterate the conflicting viewpoints advanced by
the examiner and the appellants regarding the above-noted
rejections, we make reference to the answer (mailed November 8,
2005) for the examiner's complete reasoning in support of the
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007