Appeal No. 2006-1523
Application No. 09/793,687
Kahn, 441 F.3d 977, 988, 78 USPQ2d 1329, 1336 (Fed. Cir. 2006). The examiner’s
rationale shows that the nature of the problem to be solved by Sloo provides the
motivation to combine the reference. Further, we note that Sloo’s explicit statements
regarding the use of a negotiation system also provide motivation to combine the
references as asserted by the examiner.
Sloo teaches a system for complaint resolution, which contains several options,
one of which is “Negotiate the Complaint.” See Sloo, column 7, line 42. Sloo teaches
that the negotiations result in a settlement of either a monetary value or contract
condition. See column 7, line 66 through column 8, line 5. Sloo however provides few
details of how the negotiations are to be conducted. We consider this teaching of a
negotiation option to provide suggestion to use Sloo’s system with a negotiation to
settlement system such as Burchetta. Thus, in addition to the reasons stated by the
examiner, we find that Sloo provides explicit motivation to be combined with a system
such as Burchetta’s. Accordingly, we find ample evidence of record to support the
examiner’s finding of motivation to combine Sloo and Burchetta.
With regard to appellant’s arguments directed to Burchetta and Sloo’s systems
not providing suggestions to the users, we concur with the examiner’s analysis provided
on pages 24 through 26 of the answer. We further note that in addition to the “imposed”
solution referred to in appellant’s arguments, we find that both Sloo and Burchetta
provide suggestions to the user. Sloo teaches, in column 15, lines 34 through 36, “[t]he
complaint handling apparatus could recommend best actions.” We consider a
recommendation to be a suggestion, and as such we find that Sloo teaches that the system
provides suggestions to the user. Burchetta teaches that data from previous settlements
may be tabulated and provided to the user as guidance in making demands or offers. See
column 5, lines 51 through 65. We consider guidance to be a suggestion and as such
Burchetta provides suggestions to the user.
On pages 2 and 3 of the reply brief, appellant argues that neither Burchetta nor
Sloo teach the claimed feature of “at least two of historical information, advisory
information and contra-party current position information.”
6
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007