Ex Parte Mesaros

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Sep 28, 2016

13460478 (P.T.A.B. Sep. 28, 2016)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE
13/460,478 04/30/2012
105882 7590 09/30/2016
Lewis Roca Rothgerber LLP - e Win Win Inc.
4300 Bohannon Drive
Suite 230
Menlo Park, CA 94025
FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
Gregory J. Mesaros
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
ATTORNEY DOCKET NO. CONFIRMATION NO.
EWIN-013COL 2088
EXAMINER
FADOK,MARKA
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
3625
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
09/30/2016 ELECTRONIC
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.
Notice of the Office communication was sent electronically on above-indicated "Notification Date" to the
following e-mail address( es):
gmesaros@ewinwin.com
ipdockets@lrrlaw.com
pto@lrrc.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte GREGORY J. MESAROS
Appeal2014-004266
Application 13/460,478
Technology Center 3600
Before MURRIEL E. CRAWFORD, HUBERT C. LORIN, and
MATTHEWS. MEYERS, Administrative Patent Judges.
CRAWFORD, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Appellant seek our review under 35 U.S.C. § 134 of the Examiner's
final decision rejecting claims 1, 12, 23 and 35--43. We have jurisdiction
over the appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We REVERSE.
Claim 1 is illustrative:
1. A non-transitory computer readable storage medium
having embodied thereon a program, the program being
executable by a processor to perform a method for providing
discounted offer pricing, the method comprising:
receiving one or more buyer-selected criteria;
Appeal2014-004266
Application 13/460,478
identifying at least one offer from a plurality of offers for
an item for sale at a static, nonnegotiable, and discounted price
to at least one potential buyer for a finite period of time,
wherein:
the at least one offer meets buyer-selected criteria,
including a price range and a quality rating associated
with a provider of the offer,
details about the offer and information regarding
the provider of the off er are presented before the at least
one potential buyer places an order, and
the provider has a private account and a stored
method of payment with a third party associated with
presenting offers to potential buyers;
presenting the at least one offer; and
storing a selection of a type of category or a provider of
interest for the offer at the discounted price presented to the at
least one potential buyer, wherein:
the at least one potential buyer receives updates for
subsequent offers based at least in part on the stored
selection, and
the updates are sent in response to a buyer-selected
. ,. ..
commumcauon prererence.
Appellant appeals the following rejection:
1. Claims 1, 12, 23, and 35--43 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable
over Ojha (US 6,598,026 Bl, iss. July 22, 2003), Walker (US 5,794,207,
iss. Aug. 11, 1998), Ex parte Wu, 10 USPQ2d 2031 (BP AI 1989), and
Herz (US 5,754,939, iss. May 19, 1998).
ISSUE
Did the Examiner err in rejecting claim 1 because Herz does not
disclose identifying at least one offer from a plurality of offers for an item
for sale to at least one potential buyer wherein the at least one offer meets
2
Appeal2014-004266
Application 13/460,478
buyer-selected criteria, including a quality rating associated with a provider
of the off er?
ANALYSIS
Appellant argues that Herz fails to teach criteria that include a quality
rating associated with a provider of the offer. We agree.
The Examiner finds in the Final Action that Herz teaches filter
parameters that are set by the buyer including quality parameters that are
used to sort through potential offers and cites Herz at column 61, lines 25-
55, column 17, lines 1--49, column 22, lines 17----63 and column 36, lines 25-
31 (Final Act 4). In the Answer the Examiner additionally cites column 18,
lines 50-60, column 11, line 52---column 12, line 2 and finds that Herz
teaches a user rating objects and calculating an "intrinsic quality measure."
We find that column 61, lines 25-55 of Herz discloses using attributes
of investments to match investments of interest to a user. The quality
attributes described in this column refer to negative or positive weights
assigned to investments based on, for example, historical fluctuations in
dividends. This disclosure does not relate to identifying an offer based on
buyer selected criteria which includes a quality rating.
We find that column 17, lines 1--49 of Herz discloses a system that
filters attributes associated with objects to determine which objects will be
of greatest interest to the buyers in order to match buyers with sellers. This
also does not relate to identifying an offer based on a buyer selected quality
rating.
We find that column 22, lines 17----63 teaches associating a weight
"with each attribute used in the profile of (user, target object) pairs, that is,
3
Appeal2014-004266
Application 13/460,478
with each attribute used to profile either users or target objects." Thus, the
weights "specify the relative importance of the attributes in establishing
similarity or difference, and therefore, in determining how topical interest is
generalized from one (user, target object) pair to another" (Id.). This
disclosure does not relate to offers much less identifying an off er based on a
buyer selected quality rating.
We find that column 36, lines 25-31 of Herz discloses a credentialing
system that lists quality related credentials based upon the experience of
transaction (or interaction) with the user which may acts similarly to a letter
of recommendation as in a resume. This portion of Herz relates to
recommending a user based on past experience but does not relate to
identifying offers based on a buyer selected quality rating.
We find that column 18, lines 50-60 of Herz discloses that quality
attributes can be used to determine the interest of a user. This does not
1 ' ' • 1 '... • (""("" 1 1 1 1 • 1 '... • .1 1 1 re1ace w 10ennrymg oners oy a ouyer mucn iess 10ennrymg 1nem oasea on a
buyer selected quality rating.
We find that column 11, line 52---column 12, line 2 discloses that
investors may use various attributes to characterize a corporation such as
type of business, corporate mission, number of employess, dividend payout
and appreciation of stock. This portion of Herz does not relate to a buyer-
selected criteria, including a quality rating.
The Examiner, in the Answer adds US Patent 7,016,865 to Weber et
al to clarify the use of a seller quality rating and US Patent 7,013,285 to
Rebane to clarify the use of a seller quality rating. It is not clear why such
clarification is needed. In any case, these references generally teach that it
was known to rate vendors. Weber does this by the vendor job assignment
4
Appeal2014-004266
Application 13/460,478
portion of a server picking a vendor based on quality and Rebane discloses
that consumers can rate vendors. Neither of these references teach
identifying offers based on buyer selected criteria which includes a quality
rating.
In view of the foregoing, we will not sustain the rejection of claim 1.
We will also not sustain the rejection as to the remaining claims on appeal
because these claim include a buyer-selected criteria including a quality
rating.
DECISION
The decision of the Examiner is reversed.
REVERSED
5