Ex Parte Leichter

Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences

Sep 14, 2011

10549091 (B.P.A.I. Sep. 14, 2011)

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.
10/549,091 11/01/2005 Erwin Leichter LEICHTER-1 (PCT) 7146
25889 7590 09/14/2011
COLLARD & ROE, P.C.
1077 NORTHERN BOULEVARD
ROSLYN, NY 11576
EXAMINER
AN, IG TAI
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
3687
MAIL DATE DELIVERY MODE
09/14/2011 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 BOARD OF PATENT APPEALS
AND INTERFERENCES
____________

Ex parte ERWIN LEICHTER
____________

Appeal 2010-004731
Application 10/549,091
Technology Center 3600
____________

Before MURRIEL E. CRAWFORD, ANTON W. FETTING, and JOSEPH
A. FISCHETTI, Administrative Patent Judges.

CRAWFORD, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL

Appeal 2010-004731
Application 10/549,091

2
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Appellant seeks our review under 35 U.S.C. § 134 of the Examiner’s
final decision rejecting claims 1 to 11. We have jurisdiction over the appeal
under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We REVERSE.
Claim 1 is illustrative:
1. EDP system for automatically
conducting auctions by way of a data network (1),
comprising
a) an auction server (2) connected with
the data network (1), which has an auction
database (3) for managing auction data records
comprising product description data and bid data,
and which furthermore has an auction program
controller by means of which the bid data are
evaluated and auction winners are determined from
them,
b) a plurality of bidder terminals (4, 5, 6)
also connected with the data network (1), which
have means for retrieving data from the auction
database (3) of the auction server (2), and means
for transmitting bid data to the auction server (2),
c) a retailer server (7) connected with
the data network (1),
d) an intermediary server (8) also
connected with the data network (1), whereby the
intermediary server (8) has a program controller by
means of which
- product description data are extracted
from product portfolio data records (9) received
from the retailer server (7) by way of the data
network (1),
- auction data records (10, 11, 12, 13)
are put into the auction database (3) of the auction
server (2), in accordance with the extracted
Appeal 2010-004731
Application 10/549,091

3
product description data, by way of the data
network (1), and
- order data records (17), which
comprise the customer data assigned to the auction
winners, are generated for the auction data records
(10, 11, 12, 13).
Appellant appeals the following rejection:
Claims 1 to 11 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Fisher
(US Pat. 5,835,896, iss. Nov. 10, 1998) in view of Walker (US Pat.
6,196,458 B1, iss. Mar. 6, 2001).

ANALYSIS
The Appellant argues that the prior art does not disclose a retailer
server connected to the data network and an intermediary server connected
to the data network whereby product description data is extracted from
product portfolio received from the retailer server. We agree.
The Examiner relies on Fisher for teaching the invention as claimed
except that the Examiner recognizes that Fisher does not disclose a retailer
server connected with the data network and an intermediary server also
connected with the data network, whereby the intermediary server has a
program controller. (Ans. 5).
The Examiner relies on Walker for disclosing a central
controller having multiple computers which communicate with each
other wirelessly. The Examiner finds that Fisher has one central
server with program controllers but it can serve all the functions of
auction, server, retail server and intermediary server (Ans. 6). In the
Appeal 2010-004731
Application 10/549,091

4
Examiner’s view the only difference between the invention as claimed
and the Fisher device or method is the number of servers used.
We do not agree. We find that Fisher does not disclose a retail
server which is defined in Appellant’s Specification as a suitable
personal computer of a product manufacturer or retailer. In addition,
neither Fisher not Walker discloses servers in the arrangement
claimed by Appellant.
In this regard, we note that there is no disclosure in either
Fisher or Walker of a retailer server, connected to a data network and
an intermediary server. Neither reference discloses that this
intermediary server extracts product description data from data
records sent by the retail server. As such, even if the system of Fisher
were modified to include two extra servers, such would not result in
the invention as recited in claim 1. The Examiner has not directed our
attention to a disclosure in either reference of the arrangement and
function claimed i.e., an intermediary server that extracts product
portfolio data records received from the retailer server. In addition,
the Examiner has not advanced a reasoning which is directed to the
specific arrangement and function claimed.
As such, we will not sustain the Examiner’s rejection of claim 1
and claims 2 to 4 dependent thereon. We will also not sustain the
rejection as it is directed to claim 5 and claims 6 to 11 dependent
thereon because claim 5 includes the steps of transmitting a product
portfolio data record from the retailer server to the intermediary server
and automatically extracting product description data from the product
portfolio data record by the intermediary server.
Appeal 2010-004731
Application 10/549,091

5
DECISION
The decision of the Examiner is reversed.

REVERSED

hh