Ex Parte Hanson

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Apr 17, 2014

12120091 (P.T.A.B. Apr. 17, 2014)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
___________

BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
___________

Ex parte KARL G. HANSON
___________

Appeal 2012-001594
Application 12/120,091
Technology Center 3600
___________

Before BIBHU R. MOHANTY, NINA L. MEDLOCK, and
KEVIN W. CHERRY, Administrative Patent Judges.
CHERRY, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL

Appeal 2012-001594
Application 12/120,091

2

STATEMENT OF THE CASE1
Karl G. Hanson (Appellant) seeks review under 35 U.S.C. § 134 of a
final rejection of claims 1-10 and 14-202, 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’s claimed invention relates to a method to purchase
merchandise over the Internet on a point-of-origin basis (Spec. 1, lines 8-9).
Claim 1, which is reproduced below, is exemplary.
1. A method of allowing consumers to purchase
merchandise over the internet on a point-of-origin basis, which
method comprises:
(a) providing a database that comprises information pertaining
to (i) a semi-super-variety of merchandise and (ii) location of
manufacture of products of the different product types within
the semi-super-variety of merchandise;
(b) providing a website that interacts with the database and that
is accessible on a computer system of a consumer through the
Internet;
(c) receiving input from the consumer on the website, which
input comprises consumer residence information and a product
type;
(d) displaying on the website visible on the computer system of
the consumer, in response to the consumer input for the product
type, one or more locally made products, relative to previously-

1 Our decision will make reference to the Appellant’s Appeal Brief (“App.
Br.,” filed May 12, 2011) and Reply Brief (“Reply Br.,” filed September 22,
2011), and the Examiner’s Answer (“Ans.,” mailed August 22, 2011).
2 The Final Rejection (“Final Rej.,” mailed November 12, 2010) also
rejected claims 11-13 (See Final Rej. 18-20). Appellant did not appeal the
rejection of claims 11-13 (See App. Br. 4). Claims 11-13 should have been
cancelled and the failure to do so is considered an oversight and those claims
should be cancelled.
Appeal 2012-001594
Application 12/120,091

3

inputted residence information of the consumer, of the inputted
product type for the consumer to see; and
(e) allowing the consumer to place an order for one of the
displayed locally made product(s).
(App. Br. 10, Claims App’x.)
The following rejections are before us on review: (1) claims 1, 3, 4, 5,
8, 10, 18, and 19 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable
over Call (US 6,154,738, iss. Nov. 28, 2000), Allsop (US 5,970,472,
iss. Oct. 19, 1999), and Brown (US 2003/0004857 A1, pub. Jan. 2, 2003);
(2) claims 2, 6, 7, 15-17, and 20 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
unpatentable over Call, Allsop, Brown, and Cooperman
(US 2007/0043627 A1, pub. Feb. 22, 2007); and (3) claims 9 and 14 stand
rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Call, Allsop, Brown,
and Tenorio (US 2004/0210446 A1, pub. Oct. 21, 2004).
We AFFIRM-IN-PART.
FINDINGS OF FACT
We find the findings of fact in the Analysis section below are supported
at least by a preponderance of the evidence.3
ANALYSIS
Independent Claim 1
Appellant argues that the Examiner errs in rejecting independent
claim 1 because (1) the combination of Call, Allsop, and Brown fails to
disclose certain elements of claim 1 (App. Br. 4-6; Reply Br. 2-5); (2) these

3 See Ethicon, Inc. v. Quigg, 849 F.2d 1422, 1427 (Fed. Cir. 1988)
(explaining the general evidentiary standard for proceedings before the
Patent Office).
Appeal 2012-001594
Application 12/120,091

4

references are not analogous art (App. Br. 7-8; Reply Br. 4-5); and (3) there
is no motivation to combine them (App. Br. 8; Reply Br. 4-5). In contrast,
the Examiner finds that the claim was rendered obvious by this combination
(Ans. 6-7, 23-25).
As for the first argument, Appellant specifically argues that the
combination of Call, Allsop, and Brown fails to disclose claim limitations
(c) and (d) as identified in claim 1 listed above (App. Br. 4-6; Reply Br. 2-
5). In contrast, the Examiner identifies where these limitations are met in
Call, Allsop, and Brown (Ans. 6-7, 23-24).
Claim limitation (c) requires “receiving input from the consumer on
the website, which input comprises consumer residence information and a
product type.” We agree with the Examiner that Allsop teaches receiving
input from the user comprising consumer residence information (Allsop,
col. 8, ll. 32-49 and Figure 8). We further agree with the Examiner that
Brown teaches receiving input from the user comprising consumer residence
information and product type (Brown at Paragraphs [0052]-[0055] and
[0094]-[0095], and Figure 11).
Claim limitation (d) requires “displaying on the website visible on the
computer system of the consumer, in response to the consumer input for the
product type, one or more locally made products, relative to previously-
inputted residence information of the consumer, of the inputted product type
for the consumer to see.” We agree with the Examiner that this limitation is
disclosed in Brown at Paragraphs [0048]-[0049], [0052]-[0055], [0087], and
[0094]-[0095], and Figures 2 and 11.

Appeal 2012-001594
Application 12/120,091

5

We also note that we agree with the Examiner’s findings regarding
claim limitations (a), (b), and (e) and adopt those as our own (Ans. 6-7). We
additionally find that for claim limitation (e), contrary to Appellant’s
argument that Brown does not show purchasing of a local product that is
displayed to the user, that Paragraphs [0071]-[0072] and Figure 5B clearly
show the system of Brown allows the user to select one of the bids by the
local manufacturers for the locally manufactured products and purchase it
(Blocks 172-176 of Figure 5B).
Thus, our review of the references shows that the Examiner was
correct that all these elements of claim 1 are disclosed in the combination of
Call, Allsop, and Brown. The Appellant has argued that the limitations
addressed above are missing from the references individually, but here, the
rejection is based on the combination of references, which has been shown
to include those cited claim limitations so those arguments fail. In re Keller,
642 F.2d 413, 426 (CCPA 1981) (“one cannot show non-obviousness by
attacking references individually where, as here, the rejections are based on
combinations of references”) (citation omitted).
As for the second argument, Appellant further argues that the
combination of Call, Allsop, and Brown would not have been obvious
because of certain differences between Call, Allsop, and Brown (App. Br. 7-
8; Reply Br. 4-5). In contrast, the Examiner finds that all of these references
are directed to purchases over the internet, and so are analogous art that can
be combined (Ans. 25). We agree with the Examiner. We find that Call,
Allsop, and Brown are all in the same field as the Appellant’s claimed
invention—purchasing goods over the internet—and therefore, they are
Appeal 2012-001594
Application 12/120,091

6

analogous art that would have been known to a person of skill in the art in
the field of the claimed invention.
Finally, as for Appellant’s argument that there is no motivation to
combine these references, we disagree. Here, we are persuaded that the
Examiner is correct that the combination of (1) the comprehensive, network-
accessible product database of Call that includes information about the
location of the manufacturer; with (2) the website for searching databases on
the basis of a number of criteria, including customer location, of Allsop; and
(3) the website and database system for purchasing goods that are, at least in
part, locally manufactured, of Brown would have been an obvious,
predictable combination of known, familiar elements for at least the benefits
identified in Paragraph [0014] of Brown of allowing customers to obtain a
cost-effective, locally-manufactured product. For these above reasons, the
rejection of claim 1 is sustained.
Dependent Claims 2-10 and 14-19
Aside from the arguments presented for independent claim 1,
Appellant has not separately argued the rejections of dependent claims 2-10
and 14-19, and so the rejections of these claims are accordingly sustained as
well.
Independent Claim 20
Appellant argues that independent claim 20 is patentable because the
combination of Call, Allsop, Brown and Cooperman does not disclose the
claim limitation “providing an Internet store that comprises a website that
advertises that merchandise may be purchased on a point-of-origin basis”
(App. Br. 6-8; Reply Br. 5). In contrast, the Examiner disagrees and
identifies Call at column 10, lines 3-25, as disclosing this limitation (Ans. 9,
Appeal 2012-001594
Application 12/120,091

7

11-12). We agree with Appellant that the Examiner erred in finding that the
combination of Call, Allsop, Brown, and Cooperman discloses “providing
an Internet store that advertises that merchandise may be purchased on the
website on a point-of-origin basis.” The portion cited of Call neither
discloses advertising that items may be purchased on a point-of-origin basis
nor even advertising the website. Thus, we cannot sustain the Examiner’s
rejection of claim 20.
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
The rejection of claims 1, 3, 4, 5, 8, 10, 18, and 19 under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a) as unpatentable over Call, Allsop, and Brown is not in error.
The rejection of claims 2, 6, 7, and 15-17 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
unpatentable over Call, Allsop, Brown, and Cooperman is not in error.
The rejection of claims 9 and 14 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
unpatentable over Call, Allsop, Brown, and Tenorio is not in error.
The rejection of claim 20 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable
over Call, Allsop, Brown, and Cooperman is in error.

DECISION
The rejection of claims 1-10 and 14-19 is affirmed.
The rejection of claim 20 is reversed.
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) (2011).

AFFIRMED-IN-PART
mls