Appeal No. 2006-1523
Application No. 09/793,687
conflicts, unnecessary disagreements, posturing and positioning. See column 5, lines 1
through 8. Claim 4 recites: “receiving emotional detail information.” Claims 11 and 25
contain similar limitations. We consider this to be information relating to the feelings of
the user and not information directed to the contents of the offer. See for example
appellant’s specification on page 14, lines 22 through 30. We consider this to be at odds
with Burchetta’s teaching of dealing exclusively with the bottom line and avoiding the
emotional aspects of negotiating. Further, we do not find that the disclosures of Sloo,
“Online Mediation Offered for resolving E-Commerce Disputes” and Eisen present
sufficient suggestion that Burchetta’s system should be modified in the face of the
teaching away. Accordingly, we will not sustain the examiner’s rejection of claims 4, 11,
and 25.
Rejection of claims 20 and 26 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 (a) as being
unpatentable over Burchetta in view of “Online Mediation Offered for resolving E-
Commerce Disputes” and Eisen.
Claim 20 recites the limitation “receiving, at a computer, emotional detail
information from the complainer,” claim 26 is dependent upon claim 20. As discussed
supra, with respect to claim 4, we find that Burchetta provides strong suggestion away
from using such information and that we do not find that “Online Mediation Offered for
resolving E-Commerce Disputes” and Eisen present sufficient suggestion that
Burchetta’s system should be modified in the face of the teaching away. Accordingly,
we will not sustain the examiner’s rejection of claims 20 and 26 for the reasons stated
supra with respect to claim 26.
10
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007