Appeal 2006-2997
Application 09/881,911
Claims 7, 8, and 12 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being
unpatentable over Stewart in view of Friedland.
Claims 9 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable
over Stewart in view of Walker.
Claim 5 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable
over Stewart in combination with Friedland and Kumar.
We refer to the Examiner's Answer (mailed February 8, 2006) and to
Appellants' Brief (filed December 7, 2005) for the respective arguments.
SUMMARY OF DECISION
As a consequence of our review, we will reverse the obviousness
rejections of claims 1, 2, 4, 6, 10, 11, 13 through 18, and 20 through 35.
OPINION
Appellants contend (Br. 9-10) that Stewart fails to teach, and actually
teaches away from, the claim limitation of authorizing a bidder to bid on a
particular sales listing. Specifically, Appellants contend (Br. 9-10) that
Stewart's disclosure of eliminating the need for the seller member to
repeatedly requalify a buyer member when each product order is enforced
teaches away from authorizing a bidder or buyer for a particular item for
sale. The Examiner asserts (Answer 7) that "[t]he term 'particular' does not
further distinguish over the prior art of record. Since Steward [sic] discloses
authorization for all sale listings, this encompasses a 'particular' listing." We
disagree with the Examiner.
Independent claim 1 recites, in pertinent part, "to authorize the bidder
to bid on a particular sale listing," and "authorized to bid on the particular
3
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013