Ex Parte Mesaros

Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences

Sep 17, 2009

10650635 (B.P.A.I. Sep. 17, 2009)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE 1
____________________ 2
3
BEFORE THE BOARD OF PATENT APPEALS 4
AND INTERFERENCES 5
____________________ 6
7
Ex parte GREGORY J. MESAROS 8
____________________ 9
10
Appeal 2009-001883 11
Application 10/650,635 12
Technology Center 3600 13
____________________ 14
15
Decided: September 18, 2009 16
____________________ 17
18
19
Before MURRIEL E. CRAWFORD, HUBERT C. LORIN, and BIBHU R. 20
MOHANTY, Administrative Patent Judges. 21
22
CRAWFORD, Administrative Patent Judge. 23
24
25
DECISION ON APPEAL26
Appeal 2009-001883
Application 10/650,635

2
STATEMENT OF THE CASE 1
Appellant appeals under 35 U.S.C. § 134 (2002) from a final rejection 2
of claims 1-2, 4-20, and 34-42. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b) 3
(2002). 4
Appellant invented systems and methods for utilizing a volume 5
pricing curve in conjunction with multiple suppliers (Spec. 1:9-11). 6
Claim 1 under appeal is further illustrative of the claimed invention as 7
follows: 8
1. An electronic multiple supplier system for 9
transacting business comprising: 10
a central connection component that provides a virtual 11
forum to facilitate electronic communication between buyers 12
and suppliers; and 13
at least one remote computer connected to the central 14
connection component via a network, at least one buyer 15
employs the at least one computer to request, retrieve, and 16
accept online bids that include a price curve for a product from 17
bidding suppliers, the price curve specifying a unit price in tiers 18
based on the total volume purchased, 19
the virtual forum displays in real time current low bids at 20
each tier as the bids are retrieved. 21
The prior art relied upon by the Examiner in rejecting the claims on 22
appeal is: 23
Muftic US 5,850,442 Dec. 15, 1998 24
Gellman US 2002/0035536 A1 Mar. 21, 2002 25
Lee US 2002/0065762 A1 May 30, 2002 26
Irribarren US 2002/0065769 A1 May 30, 2002 27
Abeshouse US 2002/0099643 A1 Jul. 25, 2002 28
Eso US 2003/0028473 A1 Feb. 6, 2003 29
Hao US 2003/0041002 A1 Feb. 27, 2003 30
Ginsberg US 2003/0055774 A1 Mar. 20, 2003 31
Cao US 2003/0195832 A1 Oct. 16, 2003 32
Appeal 2009-001883
Application 10/650,635

3
K. Sivakumar et al., Price Match guarantees: Rationale, 1
implementation, and consumer response, 4 Pricing Strategy & 2
Practice, 4 (1996) (hereinafter “892W”). 3
4
Magna Cash and CyberSource Partner to Expand Online Payment 5
Options, PR Newswire, 1 (Jan. 2001) (hereinafter “892U”). 6
7
Wendy Tanaka, As other companies crumble, Ecount carves out a 8
niche in online-payment services, Knight Ridder Tribune News 9
Service, 1 (Feb. 2002) (hereinafter “892V”). 10
The Examiner rejected claims 1-2, 5-6, 8, 11, 13, 34-37, and 40-41 11
under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Irribarren and Eso; 12
claims 4 and 9 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over 13
Irribarren, Eso, and Abeshouse; claim 7 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being 14
unpatentable over Irribarren, Eso, and Muftic; claims 10 and 42 under 35 15
U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Irribarren, Eso, and Gellman; 16
claim 12 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Irribarren, 17
Eso, and Lee; claim 14 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over 18
Irribarren, Eso, and Hao; claims 15 and 16 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as 19
being unpatentable over Irribarren, Eso, and Ginsberg; claim 17 under 35 20
U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Irribarren, Eso, Ginsberg, and 21
892W; claims 18-19 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over 22
Irribarren, Eso, Ginsberg, 892W, and 892U; claim 20 under 35 U.S.C. § 23
103(a) as being unpatentable over Irribarren, Eso, Ginsberg, 892W, and 24
892V; and claims 38-39 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable 25
over Irribarren, Eso, and Cao. 26
We REVERSE. 27
28
Appeal 2009-001883
Application 10/650,635

4
ISSUES 1
Did the Appellant show the Examiner erred in combining Irribarren 2
and Eso to render obvious the subject matter of independent claims 1, 8, 22, 3
and 30, because the Examiner has not provided an adequate reason for 4
modifying the unmet demand system of Irribarren to include the price curves 5
of Eso? 6
7
FINDINGS OF FACT 8
Specification 9
Appellant invented systems and methods for utilizing a volume 10
pricing curve in conjunction with multiple suppliers (Spec. 1:9-11). 11
12
Irribarren 13
Irribarren discloses a method and apparatus for processing unmet 14
demand between vendors and buyers in a bidding system ([0002]). 15
Prior art systems lack the ability to resolve relatively small disparities 16
in price between a buyer and a seller ([0010]). 17
For example, in certain trade scenarios, the vendors have an asking 18
price per product of $100, while the buyers have an asking price per product 19
of $99. Realistically, in a negotiation process in which the vendors and 20
sellers are face to face in a negotiation session, such a small amount of 21
disparity in price could be resolved through a compromise by both or either 22
parties. For example, the parties could split the difference and settle on a 23
price of $99.50/product. Accordingly, the prior art systems consider the 24
Appeal 2009-001883
Application 10/650,635

5
price disparity of $0.01, $1, and $1000 between the vendors and the buyers 1
equally, as the negotiation process is completed without a committed 2
purchase ([0051]). 3
Irribarren solves this problem by generating a new bidding cycle in 4
the on-line auction upon determining that the difference is within a pre-5
agreed range ([0052]). 6
7
Eso 8
Eso discloses one or more suppliers submitting price curves for 9
commodities indicating the price charged as a function of the purchased 10
quantity ([0030]). 11
12
PRINCIPLES OF LAW 13
Obviousness 14
Rejections on obviousness grounds cannot be sustained by mere 15
conclusory statements; instead, there must be some articulated reasoning 16
with some rational underpinning to support the legal conclusion of 17
obviousness. In re Kahn, 441 F.3d 977, 988 (Fed. Cir. 2006). 18
19
ANALYSIS 20
We are persuaded of error on the part of the Examiner by Appellant’s 21
argument that the Examiner did not provide an adequate reason for 22
modifying the unmet demand system of Irribarren to include the price curves 23
of Eso (App. Br. 11-13). The Examiner has asserted that it would have been 24
obvious to incorporate the price curve from Eso into the unmet demand 25
Appeal 2009-001883
Application 10/650,635

6
system of Irribarren to “provide quality evaluation of bids according to 1
requirements specified by a requester in complex settings” (Ex. Ans. 4-5). 2
Irribarren is a single price based system (i.e., one product, one price) 3
which determines whether the vendor’s price and the buyer’s price in a 4
failed bidding cycle are within a pre-agreed range so as to initiate a new 5
bidding cycle. The Examiner has not clearly set forth what sort of 6
requirements a requester would set forth to make the system of Irribarren a 7
“complex setting,” and how the price curves of Eso would facilitate quality 8
evaluation of bids in that complex setting. Indeed, adding price curves to the 9
system of Irribarren would appear to make it even more difficult to evaluate 10
bids, as it is not clear what criteria would be used to determine whether two 11
price curves were within the pre-agreed range. 12
Accordingly, because the Examiner has not set forth an articulated 13
reason with a rational underpinning for modifying the unmet demand system 14
of Irribarren to include the price curves of Eso, we are constrained to reverse 15
all the rejections on appeal. See In re Kahn, 441 F.3d at 988. 16
17
CONCLUSION OF LAW 18
On the record before us, Appellant has shown that the Examiner erred 19
in rejecting claims 1-2, 4-20, and 34-42. 20
Appeal 2009-001883
Application 10/650,635

7
DECISION 1
The decision of the Examiner to reject claims 1-2, 4-20, and 34-42 is 2
reversed. 3
4
REVERSED 5
6
7
8
9
hh 10
11
TUROCY & WATSON, LLP 12
127 Public Square 13
57th Floor, Key Tower 14
CLEVELAND, OH 44114 15