Ex Parte Latz

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Dec 10, 2012

11351427 (P.T.A.B. Dec. 10, 2012)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
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
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE FIRST NAMED INVENTOR ATTORNEY DOCKET NO. CONFIRMATION NO.
11/351,427 02/09/2006 Martin E. Latz LATZ.0100 4179
39602 7590 12/11/2012
THE NOBLITT GROUP, PLLC
8800 NORTH GAINEY CENTER DRIVE
SUITE 279
SCOTTSDALE, AZ 85258
EXAMINER
LONG, FONYA M
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
3689
MAIL DATE DELIVERY MODE
12/11/2012 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 MARTIN E. LATZ
____________________

Appeal 2011-005534
Application 11/351,427
Technology Center 3600
____________________

Before: MURRIEL E. CRAWFORD, BIBHU R. MOHANTY, and
MICHAEL W. KIM, Administrative Patent Judges.

KIM, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL

Appeal 2011-005534
Application 11/351,427

2
STATEMENT OF CASE
Appellant appeals under 35 U.S.C. § 134 from a rejection of claims 1-
241. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We AFFIRM.
The claims are directed to methods and apparatus for planning,
executing, and tracking negotiations (Spec., para. [0002]). Claim 1,
reproduced below, is illustrative of the claimed subject matter:
1. A computer-implemented negotiation
preparation and strategic planning and
management apparatus for assisting at least one
human user, wherein each human is a member of a
single party from among a plurality of parties in a
multi-party negotiation, comprising:
a memory device;
an information system linked to the memory
device and configured to:
capture negotiation information entered
solely by the single party relating to at least one
multi-patty negotiation; and
store the negotiation information on the
memory device; and
an assessment system configured to access
the memory device and process the negotiation
information to generate guidance information
according to the negotiation information, wherein
the guidance information comprises information
adapted to assist only the at least one human user
of the single party in conducting the multi-party
negotiation.

1 Our decision will make reference to the Appellant’s Appeal Brief (“App.
Br.,” filed September 10, 2010) and Reply Brief (“Reply Br.,” filed January
24, 2011), and the Examiner’s Answer (“Ans.,” mailed November 22, 2010).
Appeal 2011-005534
Application 11/351,427

3
Claims 1, 9, and 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Bigus (US 6,401,080 B1, iss. Jun. 4, 2002)
Claims 2-4, 10-12, and 18-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
being unpatentable over Bigus in view of Thiessen (US 2003/0163406 A1,
publ. Aug. 28, 2003) and Martin E. Latz , Using Negotiation Principles Can
Enhance Book Value, The Business Journal, (2004)
http://www.negotiationinstitnte.com/com/column_ view,aspx?id=3. (“Latz
(February 5, 2004))”.
Claims 5, 13, an d 21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Bigus in view of Martin E. Latz , Give and Take: In
Mediation, It is Important to Negotiate Effectively with the Mediator, ABA
Journal, Vol. 87, (December, 2001). (“Latz (December 2001)”).
Claims 6, 14, and 22 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Bigus in view of Marty Latz, Offer/Concession Strategy
Must Reflect Ultimate Goal, Widener University School of Law, (2003),
http://web.archive.org/web/200303l2225943Ihttp://adrlawinfo.com/negotiati
onstrategy.html. (“Latz (March 12, 2003)”)
Claims 7, 15, and 23 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Bigus in view of Martin E. Latz , Give and Take: In
Mediation, It is Important to Negotiate Effectively with the Mediator, ABA
Journal, Vol. 87, (December, 2001).. (“Latz (December 2001)”).
Claims 8, 16, and 24 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Bigus in view of Conklin (US 6,141,653, iss. Oct. 31,
2000).
Appeal 2011-005534
Application 11/351,427

4
ISSUES
Did the Examiner err in asserting that Bigus renders obvious
independent claim 12?
Did the Examiner err in asserting that a combination of Bigus,
Thiessen, and Latz (February 6, 2004) renders obvious dependent claim 2-4
and 73?
Did the Examiner err in asserting that a combination of Bigus and
Latz Negotiation Institute (2001) renders obvious dependent claim 54?
Did the Examiner err in asserting that a combination of Bigus and
Latz (March 12, 2003) renders obvious dependent claim 65?
Did the Examiner err in asserting that a combination of Bigus and
Latz (December 2001) renders obvious dependent claim 76?
Did the Examiner err in asserting that a combination of Bigus and
Conklin renders obvious dependent claim 87?

2 We choose independent claim 1 as representative of independent claims 1,
9, and 17. See 37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(1)(vii).
3 We choose dependent claim 2-4 and 7 as representative of dependent
claims 2-4, 7, 10-12, 15, 18-20, and 23. See 37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(1)(vii).
4 We choose dependent claim 5 as representative of dependent claims 5, 13,
and 21. See 37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(1)(vii).
5 We choose dependent claim 6 as representative of dependent claims 6, 14,
and 22. See 37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(1)(vii).
6 We choose dependent claim 7 as representative of dependent claims 7, 15,
and 23. See 37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(1)(vii).
7 We choose dependent claim 8 as representative of dependent claims 8, 16,
and 24. See 37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(1)(vii).
Appeal 2011-005534
Application 11/351,427

5
FINDINGS OF FACT
Specification
FF1. The Specification defines “negotiation information” as “any
information relevant to a negotiation, such as details relating to the parties,
the subject matter of the negotiation, the potential value of the subject matter
to each party, timetables, or other relevant information.” The Specification
uses “may comprise” in conjunction with this definition, showing that
“negotiation information” is intended to be broad (para. [0025]).
FF2. The Specification defines “providing guidance information” as
“presenting organized, useable negotiation information and or a resulting
negotiation analysis, for example by providing an analysis to a user or
making the analysis available to multiple parties and/or managers” (para.
[0026]).
FF3. Paragraphs [0039]-[0040], [0044], [0049] and [0053]-[0055] of
the Specification do not provide a lexicographic definition of “need
information.”
FF3. Paragraph [0056] of the Specification does not provide a
lexicographic definition of “alternatives.”

Bigus
FF4. Routine 120 typically receives a desired transaction from an
agent manager in the client system (col. 8, ll. 42-45).
FF5. Routine 120 has been genericized for either a buying agent or a
selling agent (col. 8, ll. 45-48).
Appeal 2011-005534
Application 11/351,427

6
FF6. An offer price is generated for a desired transaction by taking
into account quantity, features, and other characteristics to describe the
transaction (col. 8, ll. 53-54; col. 19, ll. 55-62).
FF7. The offer at the computed price is issued to another party (e.g.,
another agent, computer program such as a market, an individual, etc.),
typically by sending a message (col. 8, ll. 55-58).
FF8. Human agents and electronic intelligent agents have similar
constraints and considerations in a negotiation (col. 2, ll. 43-56).
FF9. Maximum and minimum bid/asked prices are calculated to
represent a range of acceptable prices for which an offer may be made by the
agent (col. 11, ll. 61-65).
FF10 A history of transactions database 206 maintains a record of
past transactions, including the price of the transaction as well as such
descriptive information as the type, quantity, and time of the transaction, as
well as the parties involved in the transaction. A current market status
database 208 maintains current market information, including the current
prices (e.g., asked and bid prices) for certain transactions, as well as any
limitations on the prices such as quantity and other descriptive information.
The current market information includes a record of current transactions,
which may include recent completed transactions and/or uncompleted
transactions such as outstanding buy and sell offers (col. 19, ll. 21-33).

Thiessen
FF12. Any number of parties involved in simple or complex
negotiations may have any number of issues in reaching an agreement that
optimizes both the individual and overall benefit to the parties. The parties
Appeal 2011-005534
Application 11/351,427

7
begin by collaborating in building a Framework for Agreement. The
Framework for Agreement may include constraints that relate two or more
issues. From the Framework for Agreement, a list of issues can be derived
and entered into a computer system. Each of the parties to a conflict or
dispute to be negotiated then enters their own preferences concerning each
issue of the conflict into the computer system. They may also enter private
issues and/or private constraints if this provides a better problem description
(para. [0017]).

ANALYSIS
Independent Claim 1
We are not persuaded the Examiner erred in asserting that Bigus
renders obvious independent claim 1 (App. Br. 21-26, 32-34; Reply Br. 2-5,
9-10). Appellant asserts that the “desired transaction” of Bigus cannot
correspond to the recited “negotiation information” because “the ‘desired
transaction’ is nothing more than an indication of whether the intelligent
agent is going to act as the buyer or seller in the transaction” (App. Br. 22-
23; Reply Br. 3-4). As an initial matter, the reference to the buyer agent or
selling agent in Bigus merely states that the routine is genericized for both
parties (FF5); it does not limit the content of the “desired transaction.”
Indeed, Bigus further discloses that an offer price is generated for the
“desired transaction” by taking into account information such as quantity
and features (FF6), which are more than just buyer or seller information.
And even if the “desired transaction” of Bigus was limited to buyer or seller
information, that information would still fall under the definition of
“negotiation information” set forth in the Specification (FF1).
Appeal 2011-005534
Application 11/351,427

8
Appellant further asserts that Bigus discloses an automated
offer/counteroffer process which would not capture “negotiation information
entered solely by the single party,” as recited in independent claim 1 (App.
Br. 23). However, Bigus discloses that the desired transaction is entered by
an agent manager, which is a single party.
Appellant also asserts that the offer price and duration of time
generated in Bigus does not correspond to “guidance information
[generated] according to the negotiation information, wherein the guidance
information comprises information adapted to assist only the at least one
human user of the single party in conducting the multi-party negotiation,” as
recited in independent claim 1 (App. Br. 23-25, 32; Reply Br. 5). Initially,
we note that the offer price of Bigus meets the definition of “guidance
information” set forth in the Specification (FF2), as the offer price (i.e.,
guidance information) is generated based on characteristics the desired
transaction (i.e., negotiation information) (FF6). The offer price is then sent
to another party (FF7), thereby assisting the party for which the offer price
was generated.
Appellant additionally asserts that Bigus is automated, and thus
cannot “assist only the at least one human user of the single party,” as
recited in independent claim 1, and that it would not have been obvious to
replace the automated system of Bigus with a human because it would run
contrary to the entire disclosure of Bigus (App. Br. 23-26, 32-34, 36, Reply
Br. 9-11). However, Bigus discloses that human agents and electronic
intelligent agents have similar constraints and considerations in a negotiation
(FF8), which at least suggests the obviousness of interchanging them.
Indeed, Appellant appears to asserting that Bigus teaches away from
Appeal 2011-005534
Application 11/351,427

9
replacing the automated system of Bigus with a human, however, Appellant
has not shown how Bigus discourages human negotiators, and in any case,
we are unpersuaded a human could not carry out a negotiation in a manner
similar to the system of Bigus, especially since Bigus admits human agents
and electronic intelligent agents have similar constraints and considerations
in a negotiation (FF8), which is the crux of negotiation. See In re Gurley, 27
F.3d 551, 553 (Fed. Cir. 1994) (“[a] reference may be said to teach away
when a person of ordinary skill, upon [examining] the reference, would be
discouraged from following the path set out in the reference, or would be led
in a direction divergent from the path that was taken by the applicant”).

Dependent Claim 2
We are not persuaded the Examiner erred in asserting that Thiessen’s
“list of issues” corresponds to “need information,” as recited in dependent
claim 2 (App. Br. 26-27; Reply Br. 5-7). Despite Appellant’s assertions to
the contrary, the cited portions of the Specification do not provide a
lexicographic definition of “need information” (FF3). Accordingly, the list
of negotiation issues, preferences, and constraints of Thiessen (FF12)
corresponds to a broadest reasonable construction of “need information.”

Dependent Claim 3
We are not persuaded the Examiner erred in asserting that Bigus’
“range of acceptable prices” corresponds to “alternatives information,” as
recited in dependent claim 3 (App. Br. 28-29; Reply Br. 7-8). Despite
Appellant’s assertions to the contrary, the cited portions of the Specification
do not provide a lexicographic definition of “alternatives information”
Appeal 2011-005534
Application 11/351,427

10
(FF4). Accordingly, the range of acceptable prices of Bigus (FF9)
corresponds to a broadest reasonable construction of “alternatives
information.”

Dependent Claim 4
We are not persuaded the Examiner erred in asserting that a
combination of Bigus, Thiessen, and Latz (February 6, 2004) teaches or
suggests “need information” and “alternatives information,” as recited in
dependent claim 4 (App. Br. 29; Reply Br. 8-9). These arguments have been
addressed above in our analysis of dependent claims 2 and 3.

Dependent Claim 5
We are not persuaded the Examiner erred in asserting that Bigus
discloses “capture information relating to multiple offers and concessions of
at least one party associated with multiple negotiations,” as recited in
dependent claim 5 (App. Br. 29-31; Reply Br. 9). Appellant asserts that
Bigus merely discloses logging completed transaction, which is not
“multiple offers and concessions.” However, Bigus discloses maintaining
“current market information, including the current prices (e.g., asked and bid
prices) for certain transactions, as well as any limitations on the prices such
as quantity and other descriptive information. The current market
information includes a record of current transactions, which may include
recent completed transactions and/or uncompleted transactions such as
outstanding buy and sell offers” (FF11). The current prices and outstanding
offers would reflect concessions made by the respective parties.

Appeal 2011-005534
Application 11/351,427

11
Dependent Claim 6
We are not persuaded the Examiner erred in asserting that a
combination of Bigus and Latz (March 12, 2003) renders obvious dependent
claim 6 (App. Br. 36-37). Appellant asserts that one of ordinary skill would
not modify the automated system of Bigus to include the additional factors
of Latz (March 12, 2003), because the additional factors are only useful to
human users (App. Br. 37). However, the above analysis of independent
claim 1 shows that it would have been obvious to modify the automated
system of Bigus to be human-implemented, which would make the
additional factors relevant.

Dependent Claim 7
We are not persuaded the Examiner erred in asserting that a
combination of Bigus and Latz (December 2001) teaches or suggests “goal
information… leverage information… standards information… offer-
concession information… and agenda information…,” as recited in
dependent claim 7 (App. Br. 36). Appellant asserts that Thiessen does not
disclose the recited information (App. Br. 36). However, Latz (December
2001) is cited for disclosing the recited information (Ans. 11-12). Indeed,
Thiessen is not even cited for this rejection.

Dependent Claim 8
We are not persuaded the Examiner erred in asserting that a
combination of Bigus and Conklin teaches or suggests “organizing and
presenting negotiation information according to a template ... in order to
enable parties to negotiate interactively until [an] agreement is reached on all
Appeal 2011-005534
Application 11/351,427

12
points,” as recited in dependent claim 8 (App. Br. 37-38). Appellant asserts
that the Examiner’s rationale for combining Bigus and Conklin is
conclusory, and that “[p]resenting information in a template would offer no
improvement to an autonomous computer program.” However, we agree
with the Examiner that “it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill
in the art at the time the invention was made to modify the intelligent agent
and method of negotiation of Bigus to include organizing and presenting
negotiation information according to a template as taught by Conklin et al. in
order to provide a standardized format in which offers from other parties are
provided and received by the agent” (Ans. 22). We do not find this rationale
conclusory, and we agree with the Examiner that a standardized format
would indeed benefit a computer program, as well as human users.

Combination of References
We are not persuaded the Examiner erred in asserting that Bigus,
Thiessen, and Latz (February 6, 2004) are combinable to render obvious
various claims (App. Br. 34-36; Reply Br. 12). Appellant asserts that one of
ordinary skill would not modify the automated system of Bigus to consider
leverage, because leverage is only useful to human users (App. Br. 34-35).
However, the above analysis of independent claim 1 shows that it would
have been obvious to modify the automated system of Bigus to be human-
implemented, which would make leverage relevant.
Appellant further asserts that that one of ordinary skill would not
modify the collaborative environment of Thiessen to include leverage (App.
Br. 35). However, Bigus is being modified to include leverage (Ans. 5-9),
not Thiessen.
Appeal 2011-005534
Application 11/351,427

13
Appellant also asserts that a combination of Latz (February 6, 2004)
and Thiessen would result in “a collaborative system viewed by all the
parties where each side inputs their perceived leverage, alternatives to a deal,
likelihood of a future relationship, or other factors of importance to only one
side in the collaborative framework. This makes no sense, as sharing this
type of strategic inclination with all the parties could substantially harm and
be counterproductive to both the individual parties and the collective parties
interested in helping add satisfaction to everyone” (App. Br. 35-36).
However, Thiessen and Latz (February 6, 2004) are used to modify Bigus
(Ans. 5-9). Thus, the result of any alleged combination of Thiessen and Latz
(February 6, 2004) alone is unpersuasive.

DECISION
The Examiner’s rejection of claims 1-24 is AFFIRMED.

AFFIRMED

Klh