Ex Parte Mesaros

Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences

May 30, 2006

10370237 (B.P.A.I. May. 30, 2006)

The opinion in support of the decision being entered today was not written
for publication and is not binding precedent of the Board.

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
____________

BEFORE THE BOARD OF PATENT APPEALS
AND INTERFERENCES
____________

Ex parte GREGORY J. MESAROS
____________

Appeal No. 2006-0659
Application No. 10/370,237
____________

HEARD APRIL 25, 2006
____________

Before FRANKFORT, CRAWFORD, and BAHR, Administrative Patent Judges.
CRAWFORD, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL
This is a decision on appeal from the examiner's final rejection of claims 1 to 4,
6 to 16 and 18 to 31, which are all of the claims pending in this application.
The appellant's invention relates to a e-commerce volume pricing methodology
(specification, p. 1). A copy of the claims under appeal is set forth in the appendix to
the appellant's brief.

Appeal No. 2006-0659
Application No. 10/370,237

Παγε 2
THE PRIOR ART
The prior art reference of record relied upon by the examiner in rejecting the
appealed claims is:
Pallakoff 6,269,343 B1 July 31, 2001

THE REJECTION

Claims 1 to 4, 6 to 16 and 18 to 31 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 102(e) as
being anticipated by Pallakoff.
Rather than reiterate the conflicting viewpoints advanced by the examiner and
the appellant regarding the above-noted rejection, we make reference to the answer
(mailed August 22, 2005) for the examiner's complete reasoning in support of the
rejection, and to the brief (filed June 28, 2005) and reply brief (filed October 24, 2005)
for the appellant's arguments thereagainst.

OPINION
In reaching our decision in this appeal, we have given careful consideration to
the appellant's specification and claims, to the applied prior art reference, and to the
respective positions articulated by the appellant and the examiner. As a consequence
of our review, we make the determinations which follow.
The examiner has rejected the claims under 35 U.S.C. § 102(e). A claim is
anticipated only if each and every element as set forth in the claim is found, either
Appeal No. 2006-0659
Application No. 10/370,237

Παγε 3
expressly or inherently described, in a single prior art reference. Verdegaal Bros. Inc. v.
Union Oil Co., 814 F.2d 628, 631, 2 USPQ2d 1051, 1053 (Fed. Cir.), cert. denied,
484 U.S. 827 (1987).
The examiner's findings regarding the rejection as it applies to claim 1 can be
found on page 3 of the answer.
The appellant argues that Pallakoff does not describe "offering a product for sale
to select buyers in a private deal room, access which is being limited at least in part to
buyers who accept a seller's terms and conditions" (claim 1, lines 2 to 3).
We agree with the appellant and thus we will not sustain this rejection.
As described in appellant's specification, the method of the present invention
limits access to a private deal room to buyers who have registered. This registration
process includes providing personal information such as name and address and
approval for a line of credit (specification at page 13). Once approved, a buyer is
provided with a user ID and a password which are used to gain access to a screen from
which a buyer can select one of several private deal rooms (specification at page 14).
Once the buyer selects the private deal room of interest, the buyer must agree to the
conditions set by the seller (specification at page 15). If the buyer agrees to the
conditions of the seller, they have access to a private deal room which contains an offer
to buy products including the description of the products, minimum order quantity, price
etc. As such, the appellant's method offers the products for sale only to those buyers
Appeal No. 2006-0659
Application No. 10/370,237

Παγε 4
who have (1) registered, which includes having been approved for a line of credit, and
(2) agreed to the conditions set by the seller.
In contrast, Pallakoff provides an offer to all who access the web page. There is
no limitation on those who view the offer information, such as description of product,
price and demand threshold (col. 3, lines 28 to 45). While it is true that only those
who join the Buy Team can purchase the products, such does not amount to offering
the product to select buyers in a private deal room. The method of Pallakoff amounts to
offering products for sale to all buyers in a public deal room and limiting the purchase of
products to select buyers.
In view of the foregoing, we will not sustain the rejection of claim 1 and claims 2
to 4, and 6 to 9 dependent thereon. We will likewise not sustain the rejection as it is
directed to claims 10, 18, 21 and 29 and the remaining claims which are dependent on
either claim 10, 18, 21 or 29 because each of claims 10, 18, 21 and 29 require a private
deal room access of which is limited to select buyers that meet and accept seller’s
terms and conditions.
The decision of the examiner is reversed.
Appeal No. 2006-0659
Application No. 10/370,237

Παγε 5
REVERSED

CHARLES E. FRANKFORT )
Administrative Patent Judge )
)
)
)
) BOARD OF PATENT
MURRIEL E. CRAWFORD ) APPEALS
Administrative Patent Judge ) AND
) INTERFERENCES
)
)
)
JENNIFER D. BAHR )
Administrative Patent Judge )

Himanshu S. Amin National City Center, 24th Floor 1900 E. 9th Street leveland, OH 44114 C
MEC/jrg

Comment [jvn1]: Type address