Ex Parte Purcell

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Sep 25, 2013

10364979 (P.T.A.B. Sep. 25, 2013)

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.
10/364,979 02/11/2003 Daniel S. Purcell 2222.0110005 6904
26111 7590 09/26/2013
STERNE, KESSLER, GOLDSTEIN & FOX P.L.L.C.
1100 NEW YORK AVENUE, N.W.
WASHINGTON, DC 20005
EXAMINER
CASLER, TRACI
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
3629
MAIL DATE DELIVERY MODE
09/26/2013 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 DANIEL S. PURCELL
____________

Appeal 2012-001777
Application 10/364,979
Technology Center 3600
____________

Before MURRIEL E. CRAWFORD, HUBERT C. LORIN, and
NINA L. MEDLOCK, Administrative Patent Judges.

CRAWFORD, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL

Appeal 2012-001777
Application 10/364,979

2
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Appellant seeks our review under 35 U.S.C. § 134 of the Examiner’s
final decision rejecting claims 2 to 25, 27, 28, 32, and 35. We have
jurisdiction over the appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We REVERSE.
Claim 2 is illustrative:
2. A method for facilitating electronic commerce,
comprising:
receiving specific, pre-selected product or service
specification characteristics associated with a plurality of
products or services offered by one or more sellers;
storing the product or service specification characteristics
in a seller inventory database;
granting electronic access to one or more buyers, to an
electronic commerce system having access to the Internet;
accessing seller inventory information from the seller
inventory database;
providing a searching capability that allows the buyer to
search the seller inventory information using search criteria
specified by the buyer, the search criteria including one or more
product or service specification characteristics;
compiling, using a processor, a listing of the products or
services based on the search criteria;
identifying, a plurality of similar products having similar
specification characteristics in the compiled listing; and
condensing, using a processor, the compiled listing to
produce a unified listing including only a single entry for each
of the similar products or services having similar specification
characteristics.

Appeal 2012-001777
Application 10/364,979

3
Appellant appeals the following rejection:
Claims 2 to 25 27, 28, 32, and 35 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
unpatentable over Woolston (US 6,202,051 B1; iss. Mar. 13, 2001) and
Povilus (US 5,740,425; iss. Apr. 14, 1998).

ISSUE
Did the Examiner err in rejecting the claims because Povilus does not
disclose condensing a compiled listing to produce a unified listing including
only a single entry for each of the similar products or services having a
similar specification?

ANALYSIS
The Examiner recognizes that Woolston does not teach compiling the
products in a condensed manner to produce a unified listing including only a
single entry for each of the similar products or services having similar
specification characteristics. The Examiner relies on Povilus at column 8,
lines 59 to 62 and column 9, lines 57 to 62 for teaching this subject matter.
Ans. 6, 7. The Appellant argues that Povilus does not disclose this subject
matter. We agree.
We find that the portion of column 8 of Povilus relied on by the
Examiner states that a lead engineer indicates which product realm is of
interest and in that realm product characteristics are arranged into tree
structures in one or more concept frames. We find that the portion of
column 9 relied on by the Examiner states that certain product characteristics
may be shared by different types of products and/or by products having
different characteristics, and that the concept structure therein described
Appeal 2012-001777
Application 10/364,979

4
provides for multiple paths through the concept software to these shared
product characteristics.
We find the portion of Povilus relied on by the Examiner does not
disclose condensing a compiled list to produce a unified listing including
only a single entry for each of similar products. In fact, the Examiner has
not directed us to a disclosure in Povilus related to condensing a compiled
list.
In view of the foregoing, we will not sustain the Examiner’s rejection
of claim 1. We will also not sustain the rejection as it is directed to the
remaining claims because each of these claims either depends from claim 1
or includes language similar to that found in claim 1 regarding condensing a
compiled list to a unified list with only one single entry for each similar
product.

DECISION
The decision of the Examiner is reversed.

REVERSED

hh