Ex Parte Pomerance - Page 7



                  Appeal No. 2006-1523                                                                                      
                  Application No. 09/793,687                                                                                
                         We are not persuaded by appellant’s arguments.  Burchetta teaches a system                         
                  where parties to a dispute enter their offers to settle the dispute, the offers are not                   
                  disclosed to the other party.  See column 1, lines 55 through 67.  The offers from each                   
                  party are compared to each other using pre-established conditions.  See column 2, lines                   
                  18 through 40.  The users can enter three offers, see column 4, lines 48 through 51.  After               
                  each round the parties are notified of the result of the comparison.  See column 9, lines 49              
                  through 52.  We consider the notification of the user that their offer was not accepted to                
                  be an indication of contra-party current position (an indication an offer is not accepted                 
                  along with the knowledge of the amount of the refused offer, provides information                         
                  concerning the contra-parties position).  Further, as stated supra, the system also provides              
                  information related to prior settlements available to the users, i.e. historical information.             
                  Thus, we find that Burchetta teaches “at least two of historical information, advisory                    
                  information and contra-party current position information.”                                               
                         For the forgoing reasons, appellant has not persuaded us of error in the                           
                  examiner’s rejection of claim 1.  Accordingly, we sustain the examiner’s rejection of                     
                  claim 1 and the claims appellant grouped with claim 1, claims 2, 3, 5, 6, 9 and 14 through                
                  19.                                                                                                       

                         Rejection of claim 21                                                                              
                         On pages 18 and 19 of the brief, appellant presents a separate argument directed                   
                  to the rejection of claim 21.  Appellant argues on page 18 of the brief:                                  
                                Burchetta's system does not generate a complaint remedy offer as required                   
                         by claim 21.  Instead, under pre-established condition, Burchetta's system                         
                         computes a settlement amount that is not one of the numbers entered by the users                   
                         (column 4, lines 54-67). The parties cannot disagree with Burchetta's computed                     
                         settlement amount, so it is not an offer.                                                          
                  Further, appellant argues that Sloo does not teach this limitation.                                       
                         We are not persuaded by appellant’s argument.  We note that Burchetta compares                     
                  each party’s offer with the counter party’s offer of the same number, i.e. each party’s first             
                  offer is compared, if there is no match, each party’s second offer is compared.  See                      
                  Column 4, lines 48 through 52.  The parties can enter all of the offers at once or over                   

                                                             7                                                              



Page:  Previous  1  2  3  4  5  6  7  8  9  10  11  12  Next 

Last modified: November 3, 2007