Appeal 2006-2157
Application 09/752,204
1 ANALYSIS
2 Claims 1, 3-5, 7-10, 12-34, 36-38, 40-43, 45-69, 71-73, 75-78, and 80-101 rejected
3 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as obvious over Barnes, Meltzer, Fox, and either of
4 Haddad or Johnson.
5 From the above findings of facts supported by a preponderance of substantial
6 evidence, we must conclude:
7 • The art applied describes utilizing, by a buyer entity and a seller entity, an
8 automated public business trading hub in the public exchange of one or more
9 commodities, wherein the buyer entity, the seller entity and the public
10 business trading hub are each separate and independently owned.
11 • The art applied describes performing via an automated trusted agent one or
12 more private business functions associated with the public exchange of the
13 one or more commodities between the buyer entity and the seller entity
14 using the public business trading hub, wherein the one or more private
15 business functions include managing in private at least one of:
16 o (i) one or more pricing terms associated with the public exchange;
17 o (ii) one or more contract terms associated with the public exchange;
18 o (iii) one or more business terms associated with supply and demand of
19 commodities associated with the public exchange; and
20 o (iv) one or more product schedules associated with the public
21 exchange,
22 • The art applied describes that the automated trusted agent is electronically
23 coupled to the public business trading hub and is separate from the buyer
24 entity, the seller entity, and the public business trading hub,
8
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013