Appeal 2007-0325
Application 09/780,248
1 REJECTIONS3
2 Claims 15-19 and 29 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 112, second paragraph,
3 as failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the invention.
4 Claims 15, 16, and 19 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 102(e) as anticipated by
5 Barzilai.
6 Claim 28 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 102(e) as anticipated by Holden.
7 Claims 5-7 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as obvious over Shoham
8 and eBay Help.
9 Claims 9-11 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as obvious over Shoham
10 and Harrington.
11 Claims 23, 24, and 274 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as obvious over
12 Barzilai and Auction This!.
13 Claims 25 and 26 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as obvious over
14 Barzilai, Auction This!, and Dinwoodie.
15 Claim 17 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as obvious over Barzilai and
16 Ladner.
17 Claim 18 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as obvious over Barzilai and
18 Scaer.
3 The Examiner also entered a provisional non-statutory double patenting rejection
with respect to co-pending application 09/669,805 (Br. 13; Answer 13-14).
Application 09/669,805 has not issued as a patent, and therefore this provisional
rejection is not ripe for appeal and we do not treat it in this opinion.
4 The Examiner included claims 12-14 in this rejection (Answer 9), but, as the
Appellant indicated (Br. 10), these claims have been cancelled.
4
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013