Appeal 2006-3156
Application 09/904,311
OPINION
We find that Bansal discloses (para. 0131) that an online intermediary
stores information such as data on buyers and sellers and "data for determining
the effects of uncertainties and risks of various kinds." Bansal further discloses
(para. 0143) that buyers and sellers sometimes wish to take risky positions in
the market. The various positions represent buyers' and sellers' attitudes
towards risk, or risk attitudes. Bansal states (para. 0167) that the description
applies to sealed bid auctions, which Appellants disclose (Specification, p. 4)
are utility-dependent auctions. Thus, we find that Bansal teaches determining
risk attitudes from bids submitted in utility-dependent auctions, as recited in
independent claims 22 and 39. Arguably Bansal likewise discloses
determining private information, as Bansal teaches storing data on buyers and
sellers. However, the information stored is derived from the same auctions as
the risk attitudes, and, therefore, from utility-dependent auctions rather than
from utility-independent auctions.
We find that Hogg discloses (para. 0005) storing and analyzing bid
information in an auction. More particularly, Hogg teaches (para. 0022)
processing the highest bids or amounts that bidders are willing to pay for a
specific item. We find no suggestion in Hogg (para. 24 or anywhere else) to
include in Bansal's method a step of determining a bidder's private information
submitted in a utility-independent auction, as recited in claims 22 and 39.
Thus, the Examiner has failed to establish a prima facie case of obviousness for
claims 22 and 39. Each of claims 26, 34, and 42 requires determining both
risk attitudes from utility-dependent auction bids and also private information
from utility-independent auction bids, either as steps performed by a processor
or the functions recited as part of a means-plus-function. Similarly, claim 30
4
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013