Ex Parte Hanif

Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences

Jul 26, 2011

11238310 (B.P.A.I. Jul. 26, 2011)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
____________

BEFORE THE BOARD OF PATENT APPEALS
AND INTERFERENCES
____________

Ex parte AMJAD HANIF
____________

Appeal 2010-010606
Application 11/238,310
Technology Center 3600
____________

Before: HUBERT C. LORIN, MEREDITH C. PETRAVICK, and
MICHAEL W. KIM, Administrative Patent Judges.

KIM, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL
Appeal 2010-010606
Application 11/238,310

2
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
This is an appeal from the final rejection of claims 1-13. We have
jurisdiction to review the case under 35 U.S.C. §§ 134 and 6 (2002).
The claimed invention is directed to commerce automation and, in one
example embodiment, to methods and systems to provide buyers with
functionality to create a social network of other buyers within a distributed
commerce system (Spec., para. [0002]). Claim 7, reproduced below, is
further illustrative of the claimed subject matter.
7. A method of identifying a relationship network in a
commerce system, the method including:
identifying a first party and a second party in a commerce
network between whom a first transaction has been at least
partially successfully completed;
identifying the first party and the second party as having
a first degree relationship with one another based on the first
transaction;
identifying a third party with whom the second party has
at least partially successfully completed a second transaction;
using one or more processors, executing instructions to
cause a machine to perform the acts of,
identifying the third party as having a second
degree relationship with the first party, based on the first
transaction and the second transaction; and
storing information identifying the first degree
relationship of the first party and second party and the
second degree relationship of the first party and the third
party.

Claims 1-13 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable
over Firmage (US Pub. 2007/0088652 A1, pub. Apr. 19, 2007).
We AFFIRM.

Appeal 2010-010606
Application 11/238,310

3
ISSUE
Did the Examiner err in asserting that Firmage renders obvious
“identifying the first party and the second party as having a first degree
relationship with one another based on the first transaction; identifying a
third party with whom the second party has at least partially successfully
completed a second transaction,” as recited in independent claim 71?

FINDINGS OF FACT
We adopt the Examiner’s findings of fact, as set forth on pages 4-9 of
the Examiner’s Answer.

ANALYSIS
We are not persuaded the Examiner erred in asserting that Firmage
renders obvious “identifying the first party and the second party as having a
first degree relationship with one another based on the first transaction;
identifying a third party with whom the second party has at least partially
successfully completed a second transaction,” as recited in independent
claim 7 (App. Br. 11-14; Reply Br. 4-7). The Examiner’s Answer has
responded to all arguments in the Appeal Brief, and thus we adopt the
reasons therein as our own. Therefore, we move to the arguments made in
the Reply Brief.
Appellant asserts that any “‘business relationships’” between member
nodes 902, searcher 912, and member 924 in Firmage may not be based on
transactions, as recited in independent claim 7 (Reply Br. 4-5). However,

1 Appellants state that independent claim 7 is representative of independent
claims 1, 7, and 13 (App. Br. 11, 14; Reply Br. 4, 7).
Appeal 2010-010606
Application 11/238,310

4
paragraphs [0073] and [0103] of Firmage disclose that financial peer-rating
via vouchers is based on “users with a history of transactions vouch[ing] for
each other,” paragraph [0102] discloses potential transactions between
searcher 912 and member 920, and paragraphs [0097]-[0101] disclose
searching among relationships 904 to initiate sale or trade of goods and
services. Accordingly, it is at least obvious that the business relationships in
Firmage are based on transactions.
Appellant asserts that no business relationship is created between
searcher 912 and member 924 because “the member that provided the
voucher does not even have to identify himself in the voucher he created”
(Reply Br. 5-7). However, paragraph [0103] discloses that “voucher
indicator 922 may or may not identify the member 902 that created the
voucher,” again making it at least obvious that in the situation where
voucher indicator 922 does identify member 902, a business relationship has
been created between searcher 912 and member 924.
Appellant further asserts that relationship 904 is not the same as a
“‘voucher’” relationship between searcher 912 and member 924 (Reply Br.
5-7). However, a requirement that the two relationships must be equivalent
is not set forth in the claims. See CollegeNet, Inc. v. ApplyYourself, Inc.,
418 F.3d 1225, 1231 (Fed. Cir. 2005) (while the specification can be
examined for proper context of a claim term, limitations from the
specification will not be imported into the claims).

Appeal 2010-010606
Application 11/238,310

5
DECISION
The decision of the Examiner to reject claims 1-13 is AFFIRMED.
No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with
this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a). See 37 C.F.R.
§ 1.136(a)(1)(iv).

AFFIRMED

hh