Appeal 2007-0325
Application 09/780,248
1 bid is accepted at said local computer, sending information about the new bid to
2 the server computer, wherein said accepting a bid comprises comparing a local bid
3 to said highest bid information, and sending said information to said server
4 computer only when said local bid is higher than said highest bid information
5 (FF21). The Appellant contends that the Examiner’s use of a live auction analogy
6 in the analysis of the rejection is inappropriate because a live auction does not
7 involve storing high bids. Certainly the reference to live versions of a claimed
8 automated process is appropriate for assisting in an analysis. As to the teachings of
9 where the high bid is stored, as the above facts demonstrate, Harrington provides
10 the requisite teaching.
11 Accordingly we sustain the Examiner's rejection of claims 9-11 under 35
12 U.S.C. § 103(a) as obvious over Shoham and Harrington.
13
14 Claims 23, 24, and 27 rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as obvious over Barzilai
15 and Auction This!.
16 The reference to a web browser in Auction This! suggests automatically
17 updating said displaying on each of said plurality of computers with new
18 information (FF25).7
19 The Appellant contends that refreshing a display following manual triggering
20 of a refresh button is not automatic refresh (Br. 10). However, the Appellant has
21 not limited the scope of the degree of automation, and the automatic nature of the
7 Also, although not part of the art applied in this rejection, Harrington describes
automatically updating clients by the server in an auction environment (FF19).
17
Page: Previous 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013