Appeal 2007-0325
Application 09/780,248
1 Claim 28 rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 102(e) as anticipated by Holden.
2 Holden fails to show treating a bid received within a predetermined period of
3 time before an end time of an auction less favorably than bids received prior to said
4 predetermined period, and thus cannot show lack of novelty (FF13).
5 Accordingly we do not sustain the Examiner's rejection of claim 28 under 35
6 U.S.C. § 102(e) as anticipated by Holden.
7
8 Claims 5-7 rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as obvious over Shoham and eBay
9 Help.
10 The art applied shows defining rules for actions in an auction, said rules
11 including at least a time when the action will take place, and an actual action that
12 will take place at the defined time; and keeping the rules secret until the defined
13 time (FF17 & 18). The Appellant contends that eBay’s reserve price rule fails to
14 include a time and action and is not a bidding rule (Br. 8). However, as the above
15 Findings of Fact (FF17 & 18) show, the rule pertains to how the bidding is
16 responded to, contains the action of requiring the reserve price hurdle to be
17 overcome, and specifies the time as that when this hurdle is overcome.
18 Accordingly we sustain the Examiner's rejection of claims 5-7 under 35 U.S.C.
19 § 103(a) as obvious over Shoham and eBay Help.
20
21 Claims 9-11 rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as obvious over Shoham and
22 Harrington.
23 The applied art shows or suggests making a decision at the local computer to
24 accept or reject a new bid from a user at the local computer; and only if the new
16
Page: Previous 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013