Appeal 2007-2370
Application 09/373,141
1 of, as opposed to specific products or services provides advantages which the
2 Appellant enumerates (Br. 13:Bottom ¶).
3 We find that Shkedy describes undiscounted monetary amounts in the form of
4 item prices (FF 17) and describes selections of categories of items (FF 13). We
5 also find that claim 1 recites selection of a specific item as an alternative to a
6 category of items (FF 07). Thus any contended differences are moot.
7 The Appellant further argues that the separation of the buying transaction from
8 the selection and redemption processes offers further advantages that the Appellant
9 enumerates (Br. 14:First full ¶).
10 As we found, supra, claim 1 recites no separation of the transaction from the
11 selection process. Similarly, claim 1 recites no separation of the transaction from
12 the redemption process (FF 04). Any advantages from such a separation are
13 therefore moot.
14 The Appellant then contends that Shkedy’s seller bids a price, not a discount
15 rate as claimed, and further contends that this difference causes Shkedy to teach
16 away from the claimed invention (Br. 15:Top ¶).
17 We find that Shkedy’s seller bid may include a discount rate (FF 16 & 17).
18 Claim 1 [1.a.i.] recites that the seller’s bid has a discount rate, not that the bid is
19 specifically restricted to a discount rate. Thus, Shkedy does not teach away from a
20 bid having a discount rate.
21 The Appellant then contends, in response to the Examiner’s finding that it is
22 inherent that the lowest price has the greatest discount rate, that the mathematical
23 complexity of obtaining an effective discount rate does not bear on the issue of
12
Page: Previous 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013