Ex Parte Farsedakis

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Nov 21, 2016

12486398 (P.T.A.B. Nov. 21, 2016)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE
12/486,398 06/17/2009
30743 7590 11/21/2016
WHITHAM, CURTIS & COOK, P.C.
11491 SUNSET HILLS ROAD
SUITE 340
RESTON, VA 20190
FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
Lewis E. Farsedakis
UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
United States Patent and Trademark Office
Address: COMMISSIONER FOR PATENTS
P.O. Box 1450
Alexandria, Virginia 22313-1450
www .uspto.gov
ATTORNEY DOCKET NO. CONFIRMATION NO.
08060015AA 5056
EXAMINER
FADOK,MARKA
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
3625
MAILDATE DELIVERY MODE
11/21/2016 PAPER
Please find below and/or attached an Office communication concerning this application or proceeding.
The time period for reply, if any, is set in the attached communication.
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte LEWIS E. F ARSEDAKIS
Appeal2014--004939
Application 12/486,398
Technology Center 3600
Before ANTON W. PETTING, JOSEPH A. FISCHETTI, and
TARA L. HUTCHINGS, Administrative Patent Judges.
PETTING, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
STATEMENT OF THE CASE 1
Lewis E. Farsedakis (Appellant) seeks review under 35 U.S.C. § 134 of
a final rejection of claims 1, 15, 16, 46, and 57---60, the only claims pending
in the application on appeal. We have jurisdiction over the appeal pursuant
to 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
The Appellant invented a form of web sites that sellers visit to find
buyers. Specification 1: 10-11.
1 Our decision will make reference to the Appellant's Appeal Brief ("App.
Br.," filed December 2, 2013) and Reply Brief ("Reply Br.," filed March 3,
Appeal2014-004939
Application 12/486,398
An understanding of the invention can be derived from a reading of
exemplary claim 1, part of which is reproduced below (some paragraphing
added).
1. A method of introducing at least one Buyer-side user to at
least one Seller-side user, without the Seller having had to post
an entry for the item being sold, comprising the steps
of:
performed by an automated system,
that publicizes a web page on which Buyer Contacts are
displayed,
without the Buyer-side email address or telephone
number being shown on the web page where Buyer
Contacts are displayed;
for at least one self-described claimed identity, performing
cross referencing, followed by computing an Identity Rating
for at least one of the Buyer-side user and the Seller-side user
wherein the Identity Rating is a score that reflects how real is
the self-described claimed identity;
displaying the computed Identity Rating to an opposite party;
The Examiner relies upon the following prior art:
Konstacky US 2007 /0050265 Al
Clay US 2007/0055616 Al
Tedesco US 2009/0012878 Al
Mar. 1, 2007
Mar. 8, 2007
Jan. 8,2009
2014), and the Examiner's Answer ("Ans.," mailed January 2, 2014), and
Final Action ("Final Act.," mailed July 2, 2013).
2
Appeal2014-004939
Application 12/486,398
Claims 1, 15, 16, 46, and 57---60 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a)
as unpatentable over Konstacky, Tedesco, and Clay.
ISSUES
The issues of obviousness tum primarily on whether the references
describe computing an Identity Rating for at least one of the Buyer-side user
and the Seller-side user wherein the Identity Rating is a score that reflects
how real is the self-described claimed identity.
FACTS PERTINENT TO THE ISSUES
The following enumerated Findings of Fact (FF) are believed to be
supported by a preponderance of the evidence.
Facts Related to the Prior Art
Konstacky
01. Konstacky is directed to providing a list of at least one item
desired to be purchased by at least one buyer to a seller. Buyers
provide information relating to items desired to be purchased.
This information is selectively communicated to sellers based
upon search criteria provided by the sellers. A buyer database is
created for recording buyer related information. An items wanted
database is created for recording items wanted information. One
or more buyer database records are created by recording buyer
related information received from at least one buyer into the fields
of at least one buyer database record. One or more items wanted
3
Appeal2014-004939
Application 12/486,398
database records are created by recording item wanted related
information received from at least one buyer into the fields of at
least one items wanted database record. Optionally, a seller
database is created for recording seller related information. Also
optionally, one or more seller database records are created by
recording seller related information received from at least one
seller into the fields of at least one seller database record. An
items wanted database search request is received from a seller.
The search request contains information related to an item which
the seller desires to sell. The items wanted database is filtered into
a set of records satisfying the search request. The filtered set of
records is translated such that the set of records is suitable for
transmission and display across the Internet. For example, the
filtered set of records may be translated into a hypertext markup
language format. The seller is provided with the translated filtered
set of records by way of an Internet transmission. Konstacky para.
5.
Tedesco
02. Tedesco is directed to using various types of devices (e.g.,
mobile or cellular telephones) to sell and to buy personal property.
Tedesco para. 19.
03. Tedesco describes sorting messages within a given voicemail or
email mailbox based on one or more criteria, including the
credibility or rating of a prospective buyer (e.g., more credible,
4
Appeal2014-004939
Application 12/486,398
established buyers with stronger ratings may be given priority in a
mailbox). Tedesco para. 126.
04. Tedesco describes a seller providing a rule which provides that
a ring tone should be output through a speaker of a cellular phone
at different volumes based on the rating of a prospective buyer.
Tedesco para. 132.
05. Tedesco describes the central computer tracking each party's
prior uses of the system and publishing associated ratings for users
that future potential counterparties may review and evaluate
pursuant to "discovery." The score or rating may be calculated
based on one or more metrics that consider one or more of: (1)
the number of transactions consummated by a party, (2) the ratio
of consummated transactions to postings listed by a party, (3)
feedback or scores provided by other users, ( 4) feedback or scores
Clay
provided by adjudicators (e.g., as described herein), (5) feedback
or scores provided by human assistants (e.g., as described herein),
and/or (5) any other metric or data point. Tedesco para. 144.
06. Clay is directed to auctioning items for sale on an internetwork.
Specifically, the invention relates to apparatus, methods, and
systems for online auction trading. Clay para. 3.
07. Items may be displayed in chronological order by the date and
time they were posted, in chronological order by the auction end
date and time. Clay para. 77.
5
Appeal2014-004939
Application 12/486,398
ANALYSIS
We are persuaded by Appellant's argument that none of the references
describes computing an Identity Rating for at least one of the Buyer-side
user and the Seller-side user wherein the Identity Rating is a score that
reflects how real is the self-described claimed identity. App. Br. 12-13;
Claim 1. The Examiner finds that Tedesco describes user ratings. Final Act.
3. We agree. However, the claim is narrower, requiring the rating rate the
reality of a self-described identity. Tedesco instead rates effectively the
desirability of a customer, rather than the likelihood the customer is
accurately identified. The Examiner responds that the Specification
provides many possible implementations and so any implementation in the
art would suffice. Ans. 6. Again, we agree with the Examiner's finding as
to the breadth of possible implementations, but disagree as to its pertinence
to the issue of whether Tedesco describes any suggestion for, much less any
implementation of, an identity rating.
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
The rejection of claims 1, 15, 16, 46, and 57---60 under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a) as unpatentable over Konstacky, Tedesco, and Clay is improper.
6
Appeal2014-004939
Application 12/486,398
uECISION
The rejection of claims 1, 15, 16, 46, and 57---60 is reversed.
REVERSED
7