Appeal 2006-2635
Application 09/935,287
(Answer 5) that it would have been obvious "to include someone/something
determining and recommending to the seller a recommended sales price, so
that the seller would be able to price the good in accordance with the market
for the good." Although we agree with the Examiner that sellers often check
comparable prices for goods before setting asking prices, we find no
suggestion in Lalonde to include in the ad database sale price information
nor to provide recommended sale prices to the seller during the listing of the
ad. Consequently, we cannot sustain the rejection of claims 9 and 10.
Claim 11 recites a step of receiving a seller identification code.
Appellants contend (Br. 14) that Lalonde fails to disclose a seller
identification code that identifies the seller. However, as pointed out by the
Examiner (Answer 11), Lalonde states (col. 6, ll. 21-22) that "the operator
asks the seller to identify itself, such as by supplying a seller ID or other
identifying information." Clearly, Lalonde discloses a seller identification
code. Accordingly, we will sustain the rejection of claim 11. As Appellants
add no further arguments for claim 12, which depends from claim 11, we
will also sustain the rejection of claim 12.
As to claim 13, Appellants contend (Br. 15-16) that Lalonde fails to
teach or suggest using a seller's telephone number to identify the seller. The
Examiner (Answer 6) admits that Lalonde does not explicitly disclose using
a seller's telephone number to identify the seller but explains that it is well-
known to use a telephone number as an ID for an account. We agree that
Lalonde does not specifically mention using a telephone number for seller
identification purposes. However, Lalonde does disclose (col. 6, ll. 21-22)
using a seller ID "or other identifying information." Since Lalonde leaves
open the possibility of other known means of identification, and since the
7
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013