Appeal 2006-2157
Application 09/752,204
1 • Whether the art applied describes or would have fairly suggested, to one of
2 ordinary skill in the art, that the automated trusted agent is electronically
3 coupled to the public business trading hub and is separate from the buyer
4 entity, the seller entity and the public business trading hub, and wherein
5 details of the one or more private business functions performed by the
6 automated trusted agent remain unknown to other entities accessing the
7 public business trading hub.
8 In particular, the Appellants contend that none of the applied art, including
9 Haddad and Johnson, teach the existence of an automated trusted agent
10 (performing one or more of the recited business functions of the independent
11 claims) to add private relationships (and hierarchical authority) to a public business
12 trading hub, thereby allowing, for example, selected mission critical aspects of a
13 fulfillment process (e.g., confidential preferential pricing terms) to be shielded
14 from certain entities while allowing non-critical information or terms in the
15 exchange of commodities to freely flow between entities via the automated public
16 business trading hub. (Br. 15-16).
17
18 FACTS PERTINENT TO THE ISSUES
19 The following facts pertinent to the above issues are supported by a
20 preponderance of the evidence:
21 Barnes teaches a method for facilitating the exchange of goods/services
22 (Abstract)(Fig 1)(Fig 2) utilizing the Internet(Fig 1)(Fig 6B) and incorporating
23 suppliers and buyers(Fig 6B/106)(Fig 6A/84/78) incorporating a bank and a
24 clearing mechanism(Fig 6A/50/18) as well as an invoicing mechanisms
5
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013