Ex Parte Reber

Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences

Dec 22, 2008

10771890 (B.P.A.I. Dec. 22, 2008)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
____________

BEFORE THE BOARD OF PATENT APPEALS
AND INTERFERENCES
____________

Ex parte HOBIE REBER
____________

Appeal 2008-4438
Application 10/771,890
Technology Center 3600
____________

Decided: December 23, 2008
____________

Before HUBERT C. LORIN, ANTON W. FETTING, and
BIBHU R. MOHANTY, Administrative Patent Judges.

LORIN, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL

STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Hobie Reber (Appellant) seeks our review under 35 U.S.C. § 134 of
the final rejection of claims 1-20. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C.
§ 6(b) (2002).
Appeal 2008-4438
Application 10/771,890

2
SUMMARY OF DECISION
We AFFIRM. 1
THE INVENTION
The invention is directed to a system for determining the availability
and location of items available for sale by a merchant located within a multi-
dealer retail establishment. The system comprises a computer network, a
database associated with the network, and means for inputting merchant
information into the database wherein the merchant information is associated
with the merchant’s location in the multi-dealer retail establishment. The
system further comprises a means for accessing the merchant database from
a remote location via a computer terminal and means for searching the
database for item information available for sale by a merchant associated
with the merchant’s location within the multi-dealer retail establishment.
(Specification 3:12 – 4:2).
Claim 1, reproduced below, is illustrative of the subject matter on
appeal.
1. A system for determining an availability
and a location of an item offered for sale by a
merchant in a multi-dealer retail establishment
wherein the multi-dealer retail establishment is a
structure defined by walls wherein the walls define
an interior space and wherein the availability and
the location of the item are determined only within
the multi-dealer retail establishment and further
wherein the multi-dealer retail establishment has a
plurality of merchants wherein each of the

1 Our decision will make reference to the Appellant’s Appeal Brief (“App.
Br.,” filed Aug. 27, 2007) and Reply Brief (“Reply Br.,” filed Jan. 24, 2008),
and the Examiner’s Answer (“Answer,” mailed Nov. 23, 2007).
Appeal 2008-4438
Application 10/771,890

3
plurality of merchants is associated with only one
of a plurality of locations within the interior space
of the multi-dealer retail establishment and each of
the plurality of merchants offers a plurality of
items that are a distinct group of items from any
other merchant of the plurality of merchants, the
system comprising:
a computer network;
a database associated with the computer
network;
means for inputting merchant information
into the database wherein the merchant
information is associated with the location of each
one of the plurality of merchants wherein the
merchants are located only within the interior
space of the multi-dealer retail establishment;
means for inputting item information in the
database wherein the item information is
associated with a description of the item and a
price of the item wherein each one of the plurality
of items is only locatable within the interior space
of the multi-dealer retail establishment; and
a computer terminal located within the
interior space of the multi-dealer retail
establishment wherein the computer terminal
connects to the computer network and enables
access to the item information and the merchant
information and further wherein the computer
terminal is remote with respect to the database and
determines the location of the item wherein the
item is only locatable within the interior space of
the multi-dealer retail establishment by searching
the item information in the database wherein the
item information is associated with the location of
the merchant within the interior space of the multi-
dealer retail establishment.

Appeal 2008-4438
Application 10/771,890

4
THE REJECTIONS
The Examiner relies upon the following as evidence of
unpatentability:
Pugliese US 2001/0044751 A1 Nov. 22, 2001
Russell US 2002/0083061 A1 Jun. 27, 2002
Chang US 2003/0110078 A1 Jun. 12, 2003

Craig Crossman, Look, listen and interact with multimedia, Austin American
Statesman, D6 (Mar. 21, 1994) (available at ProQuest (document ID:
83051038)).

The following rejections are before us for review:
1. Claims 1-3, 8-11, 13, 15, and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a)
as being unpatentable over Chang in view of Russell.
2. Claims 4, 5, 7, 12, 14, 17, 19, and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. §
103(a) as being unpatentable over Chang in view of Russell and
further in view of Pugliese.
3. Claims 6 and 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Chang in view of Russell and further in view of
Crossman.

ISSUES
The first issue before us is whether the Appellant has shown that the
Examiner erred in rejecting claims 1-3, 8-11, 13, 15, and 18 under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a) as being unpatentable over Chang in view of Russell. The first
issue turns on 1) whether Chang and Russell are analogous art, 2) if so,
Appeal 2008-4438
Application 10/771,890

5
whether there is a motivation to combine Chang and Russell, and 3) if so,
whether the combination of Chang and Russell would lead one of ordinary
skill in the art to the claimed invention.
The second issue before us is whether the Appellant has shown that
the Examiner erred in rejecting claims 4, 5, 7, 12, 14, 17, 19, and 20 under
35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Chang in view of Russell and
further in view of Pugliese. The second issue turns of whether the
combination of Chang, Russell, and Pugliese would lead one of ordinary
skill in the art to the claimed invention.
The third issue before us is whether the Appellant has shown that the
Examiner erred in rejecting claims 6 and 16 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
being unpatentable over Chang in view of Russell and further in view of
Crossman. The third issue turns of whether the combination of Chang,
Russell, and Crossman would lead one of ordinary skill in the art to
displaying an electronic map associated with the multi-dealer retail
establishment wherein the location of the merchant is associated with the
item information.

FINDINGS OF FACTF FACT
We find that the following enumerated findings of fact (FF) are
supported by at least a preponderance of the evidence. Ethicon, Inc. v.
Quigg, 849 F.2d 1422, 1427 (Fed. Cir. 1988) (explaining the general
evidentiary standard for proceedings before the Office).
Claim construction
Appeal 2008-4438
Application 10/771,890

6
1. Claim 1 recites, “a multi-dealer retail establishment wherein the
multi-dealer retail establishment is a structure defined by walls.”
This limitation broadly covers, for example, a shopping mall which
is an establishment containing a number of retailers dealing in
items within a structure defined by walls.
2. Claim 1 recites, “means for inputting merchant information into
the database wherein the merchant information is associated with
the location of each one of the plurality of merchants wherein the
merchants are located only within the interior space of the multi-
dealer retail establishment.” The Specification exemplifies the use
of a “merchant interface” as a means by which merchant
information may be entered. (Specification 10:3-9; see element 20
on Fig. 1.)
3. Claim 1 recites, “means for inputting item information in the
database wherein the item information is associated with a
description of the item and a price of the item wherein each one of
the plurality of items is only locatable within the interior space of
the multi-dealer retail establishment.” The Specification
exemplifies a computer terminal as a means by which item
information may be entered. (Specification 14:18-20; see Fig. 2.)
4. Claim 1 recites, “a computer terminal located within the interior
space of the multi-dealer retail establishment.” The claim does not
place any limitation to where the computer terminal may be
located within the multi-dealer retail establishment (e.g., a
shopping mall). Accordingly, the claim covers a computer
Appeal 2008-4438
Application 10/771,890

7
terminal in a retail establishment that a merchant would use to
input item information in the database.
5. Claim 1 recites, “wherein the computer terminal is remote with
respect to the database.” The Specification does not provide a
definition for “remote.” The ordinary and customary meaning of
“remote” is “of or by means of a terminal, etc. located some
distance away from the computer [database] and therefore
requiring a communication line.” (See Webster’s New World
Dictionary (3rd Ed. 1988.) (Entry 9. Comput. for “remote”; adj.).
Accessing a database via a webpage over the Internet is normally
accomplished by using a terminal some distance away from the
database being accessed.
6. Claim 18 uses the term “geographical.” The Specification does not
provide a definition for “geographic.”
7. The ordinary and customary meaning of “geographic” is
“belonging to or characteristic of a particular region.” (See
Merriam-Webster’s Collegiate Dictionary 487 (10th Ed. 1993,)
(Entry for “geographic”; adv.).
The Invention
8. The Appellant’s invention relates to a system and method to locate
available products for sale in multi-dealer retail establishment.
(Specification 1:9-11.)
9. An objective of the invention is to keep the information in the
system complete and current. (Specification 1:25 - 2:30.)
Appeal 2008-4438
Application 10/771,890

8
10. The Specification describes a multi-dealer retail establishment
exemplified by a shopping mall, antique mall, flea market, or the
like. (Specification 1:14-17.)
11. The Specification describes using a website 18 as a means for
inputting merchant information into the database 14.
(Specification 10:23-25.)
12. The Specification describes using website 18 as a means for
inputting item information. (Specification 14:16-18.)
The scope and content of the prior art
Chang
13. Chang relates to a system and method for collecting product
information from a broadcast and using the information to
determine product location and cost. (Chang [0007] – [0008].)
14. Chang is concerned with facilitating shopping by making it easier
to locate advertised products. (Chang [0005] – [0007].)
15. Chang describes a shopping computer located at a kiosk in a
shopping center, mall, or other shopping venue. (Chang [0025].)
16. Chang describes inputting data from a broadcast into the shopping
computer and retrieving product data. (Chang [0009].)
17. Chang describes that the product data could include physical
location of a product in a particular store, current price, similar
products, coupons, stock of product, etc. (Chang [0023].)
18. Chang describes that the shopping computer is connected to a
database, which contains the product data. (Chang [0020].)
19. Figure 1 of Chang shows the shopping computer separate from the
database.
Appeal 2008-4438
Application 10/771,890

9
Russell
20. Russell relates to a method of creating a searchable electronic
database for use in tradeshows and conventions. (Russell [0002].)
21. Russell is concerned with creating an efficient way to generate
information for an attendee to find a particular vendor or exhibitor.
(Russell [0003]-[0006].)
22. The vendors are exhibitors at the tradeshow. (Russell [0009].)
23. Russell describes the database containing vendor products, website
site address, catalogue information, show location, and product
cost. Russell [0007] and [0009].
24. Russell states, “[i]n the preferred embodiment, tradeshow
information is collected via the Internet and electronically
complied into a database ….” (Abstract.)
25. Russell describes that vendors use a secure web page to upload
web page address and information about their products into the
database. (Russell [0007].)
26. Russell describes that the database can be uploaded on a web page.
(Russell [0007].)
27. Russell describes that the database can be accessed by a user using
a computer system and wireless network provided at the
tradeshow. (Russell [0012].)
28. Russell describes providing an access password for the web page
having the database. (Russell [0007].)
Pugliese
Appeal 2008-4438
Application 10/771,890

10
29. Pugliese describes a system where online shoppers can browse a
brick and mortar store and interact with sales people. (Pugliese
[0008].)
30. Pugliese describes a merchant logging on to their video station.
(Pugliese [0337].)
31. Pugliese describes a lost password processing function that sends a
lost password to a merchant via email when requested. (Pugliese
[0332].)
32. Pugliese describes the system having a manage merchant catalog
function that allows merchants to enter update product information
within the merchant’s online catalog. (Pugliese [0341].)
33. Pugliese describes a merchant registration which allows an
administrator or merchant to register and update merchant
information, including location. (Pugliese [0335].)
34. Pugliese describes a shopper profile which includes store
preferences, shopping history, and consumer behavioral data.
(Pugliese [0117].)
35. Pugliese describes a manage personal fold function which allows a
shopper to keep records, notes, or remainders. (Pugliese [0206].)
36. Pugliese describes a Merchant Data Domain which includes store
specific inventory information. (Pugliese [0099].)
Crossman
37. Crossman describes multi media interaction systems. (Pg. 1.)
38. Crossman states, “[t]ouching the screen might start a small video
window in which a salesperson points out where you can buy
selected products, while another portion of the screen displays an
Appeal 2008-4438
Application 10/771,890

11
animated map showing your location and how to get to the store.”
(Pg. 1.)
Any differences between the claimed subject matter and the prior art
39. Chang does not explicitly disclose a means for inputting merchant
information and a means for inputting item information.
The level of skill in the art
40. Neither the Examiner nor the Appellant has addressed the level of
ordinary skill in the pertinent art of product identification. We will
therefore consider the cited prior art as representative of the level
of ordinary skill in the art. See Okajima v. Bourdeau, 261 F.3d
1350, 1355 (Fed. Cir. 2001) (“[T]he absence of specific findings
on the level of skill in the art does not give rise to reversible error
‘where the prior art itself reflects an appropriate level and a need
for testimony is not shown’”) (Quoting Litton Indus. Prods., Inc. v.
Solid State Sys. Corp., 755 F.2d 158, 163 (Fed. Cir. 1985)).
41. One of ordinary skill in the art would know to use a webpage to
efficiently input information into a database.
42. One of ordinary skill in the art would know that a password could
be used to logon to a computer system.
Secondary considerations
43. There is no evidence on record of secondary considerations of non-
obviousness for our consideration.

Appeal 2008-4438
Application 10/771,890

12
PRINCIPLES OF LAW
Claim Construction
During examination of a patent application, a pending claim is given
the broadest reasonable construction consistent with the specification and
should be read in light of the specification as it would be interpreted by one
of ordinary skill in the art. In re Am. Acad. of Sci. Tech Ctr., 367 F.3d 1359,
1364 (Fed. Cir. 2004). “[W]e look to the specification to see if it provides a
definition for claim terms, but otherwise apply a broad interpretation. As
this court has discussed, this methodology produces claims with only
justifiable breadth. In re Yamamoto, 740 F.2d 1569, 1571 (Fed. Cir. 1984).
Further, as applicants may amend claims to narrow their scope, a broad
construction during prosecution creates no unfairness to the applicant or
patentee. Am. Acad., 367 F.3d at 1364.” In re ICON Health and Fitness,
Inc., 496 F.3d 1374, 1379 (Fed. Cir. 2007). Limitations appearing in the
specification but not recited in the claim are not read into the claim. E-Pass
Techs., Inc. v. 3Com Corp., 343 F.3d 1364, 1369 (Fed. Cir. 2003).
Obviousness
“Section 103 forbids issuance of a patent when ‘the differences
between the subject matter sought to be patented and the prior art are such
that the subject matter as a whole would have been obvious at the time the
invention was made to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which said
subject matter pertains.’” KSR Int'l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 127 S. Ct. 1727,
1734 (2007). The question of obviousness is resolved on the basis of
underlying factual determinations including (1) the scope and content of the
prior art, (2) any differences between the claimed subject matter and the
prior art, and (3) the level of skill in the art. Graham v. John Deere Co., 383
Appeal 2008-4438
Application 10/771,890

13
U.S. 1, 17-18 (1966). See also KSR, 127 S. Ct. at 1734 (“While the
sequence of these questions might be reordered in any particular case, the
[Graham] factors continue to define the inquiry that controls.”) The Court
in Graham further noted that evidence of secondary considerations “might
be utilized to give light to the circumstances surrounding the origin of the
subject matter sought to be patented.” 383 U.S. at 17-18.

ANALYSIS
The Rejection of Claims 1-3, 8-11, 13, 15, and 18
Claims 1
We begin by giving claim 1 the broadest reasonable construction in
light of the Specification as it would be interpreted by one of ordinary skill
in the art. Claim 1 describes a system comprising a computer network, a
database associated with the computer network, means for inputting
merchant information into the database, means for inputting item
information into the database, and a computer terminal located within the
interior space of, for example, a mall remote from the database that is
capable of accessing and searching the information in the database.
The Examiner has taken the position that Chang discloses the claimed
invention but for an explicit teaching of inputting merchant and item
information in the database. In that regard, the Examiner has stated that
inputting such information is implicit in the practice of Chang’s invention
(Final Rejection 5) but also relies on Russell as evidence of an explicit prior
art disclosure of inputting vendor information which necessarily shows
inputting item and merchant information. (Final Rejection 6 and Answer 5.)
The Examiner concluded therefrom that
Appeal 2008-4438
Application 10/771,890

14
[i]t would have been obvious to one of ordinary
skill in the art at the time of invention to have
modified the invention of Chang to have included
means for inputting merchant information and item
information as taught by Russell in order to
provide a system that allows vendors to upload
information into an electronic database compatible
with searchable reader software thereby facilitating
efficient search for and generation of desired
information (such as product or vendor location)
for a user in a multi dealer establishment (see at
least: Russell, abstract, 0006, 0008).

(Final Rejection 6.)
We have carefully reviewed the record and find that the Examiner has
established a prima facie case of obviousness that includes an articulation of
an apparent reasoning to combine the references which would lead one of
ordinary skill in the art to the invention as claimed and one that is logically
underpinned.
The Appellant argues 1) that the combination of Chang and Russell
does not disclose all of the limitations of claim 1, 2) that motivation to
combine Chang and Russell does not exist in the record, and 3) that Chang
and Russell are non-analogous.
First, the Appellant argues that neither Chang nor Russell specifically
describes:
1) “a multi-dealer retail establishment that is defined by walls;”
2) “a means for inputting merchant and item information that covers
merchants in a multi-dealer retail establishment defined by walls and
an interior space wherein the availability and the location of the item
Appeal 2008-4438
Application 10/771,890

15
are determined only within the interior space of the multi-dealer retail
establishment;”
3) “a computer terminal located within a multi-dealer retail
establishment defined by walls and an interior spaced that allows a
user to search for items for sale within the multi-dealer retail
establishment;” and
4) “a computer terminal that may access a separately-located database
that contains merchant and item information covering merchants and
items located within a multi-dealer retail establishment.”
(App. Br. 13.)
Obviousness requires “a reason that would have prompted a person of
ordinary skill in the relevant field to combine the elements in the way the
claimed new invention does.” KSR Int'l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 127 S. Ct.
1727, 1741 (2007). “The first issue we address with respect to obviousness
is the scope and content of the prior art—specifically whether the prior art
exhibited every step of the methods claimed in independent claims 1 and 31
of the ’099 patent.” Muniauction, Inc. v. Thomson Corp., 532 F.3d 1318,
1324 (Fed. Cir. 2008).
We agree with the Examiner that all of the limitations of claim 1,
including those above, are found in Chang and Russell. Chang describes a
shopping mall, which is a multi-dealer retail establishment defined by walls.
(FF 10 and 15.) A shopping computer is located at shopping mall (FF 15)
and is remotely connected to a database (FF 18-19). The database contains
product location information. (FF 17.) Russell describes using a secured
web page to collect vendor information and product information and input
the information into a database. (FF 25-26.) Russell describes inputting
Appeal 2008-4438
Application 10/771,890

16
information for vendors exhibiting at the trade show. (FF 22 and 25.)
Therefore, the database contains information regarding merchants and
products located at the tradeshow. A computer system located at a
tradeshow can be used to locate vendors and products. (FF 27.)
Second, the Appellant argues that “no reason or suggestion in the
evidence of record exists why one of ordinary skill in the art would have
been led to combine Chang et al. with Russell to produce the claimed
invention.” (App. Br. 15.) The Examiner contends that one of ordinary skill
in the art would be motivated to use a web page as in Russell as the means
for inputting information into the database of Chang in order to facilitate
“efficient search for and generation of desired information.” (Final
Rejection 6.)
“The motivation need not be found in references sought to be
combined, but may be found in any number of sources, including common
knowledge, the prior art as a whole, or the nature of the problem itself.”
Dystar Textlifarben GmbH & Co. Deutschland KG v. C.H. Patrick Co., 464
F.3d 1356, 1361 (Fed. Cir. 2006).
We find that one of ordinary skill in the art would be led to use a
webpage as in Russell to input information into the database in Chang.
While Chang does not explicitly describe a means for inputting information
into the database, Chang does describe that the data exists into the database.
(FF 16-17.) In order for the data to exist in the database, the data must have
been inputted. We find the act of inputting data into a database not only a
matter of common sense to those of ordinary skill in the art of computing but
well within the understanding of one of ordinary skill reading Chang that
such an act is necessarily required to practice the Chang invention. “A
Appeal 2008-4438
Application 10/771,890

17
person of ordinary skill is also a person of ordinary creativity, not an
automaton.” KSR Int'l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 127 S. Ct. 1727, 1742 (2007).
See also Allvoice Computing PLC. V. Nuance Communications, Inc., 504
F.3d 1236, 1242 (Fed. Cir. 2007).
Nevertheless, one of ordinary skill in the art would have been led to
input information into the Chang database given Russell. Russell describes
that a webpage is a means of inputting data into a database. (FF 24-25.)
Using a webpage to input information directly into a database would be an
efficient way of generating information. (FF 41.) We are cognizant that
Russell inputs information into a database where the database is used for a
purpose (e.g., tradeshow) that is somewhat different from that of Chang
(e.g., a mall), but this does not lead one of ordinary skill away from the
combination. But “[c]ommon sense teaches, however, that familiar items
may have obvious uses beyond their primary purposes, and in many cases a
person of ordinary skill will be able to fit the teachings of multiple patents
together like pieces of a puzzle.” KSR at 1742.
Further, the Appellant argues that motivation to combine does not
exist since Russell describes a tradeshow and not a retail establishment and
that this teaches away from the combination. (Reply Br. 6.) The test of
whether a reference teaches away from the claimed subject matter is:
A reference may be said to teach away when
a person of ordinary skill, upon reading the
reference, would be discouraged from following
the path set out in the reference, or would be led in
a direction divergent from the path that was taken
by the applicant. The degree of teaching away will
of course depend on the particular facts; in general,
a reference will teach away if it suggests that the
Appeal 2008-4438
Application 10/771,890

18
line of development flowing from the reference's
disclosure is unlikely to be productive of the result
sought by the applicant.
In re Gurley, 27 F.3d 551, 553 (Fed. Cir. 1994); see KSR, 127 S. Ct. at
1739–40 (explaining that when the prior art teaches away from a
combination, that combination is more likely to be nonobvious).
We find that Russell does not teach away from the Appellant’s
invention, using the system in a tradeshow environment does not discourage
one of ordinary skill in the art from using the system in a retail environment.
We see nothing in Russell which would discourage one from using the retail
environment that Chang clearly describes.
Third, the Appellant argues that both Chang and Russell are non-
analogous to Appellant’s invention because 1) Chang relates to a system for
receiving broadcast advertising and 2) Russell relates to a method for
providing a searchable electronic database for a tradeshow. (Reply Br. 10.)
The Examiner contends that Chang and Russell pertain to multi-dealer
venues with product/vendor locating means and are pertinent to the problem
applicant is attempting to solve. (Answer 5.)
“The analogous-art test requires that the Board show that a reference
is either in the field of the applicant's endeavor or is reasonably pertinent to
the problem with which the inventor was concerned in order to rely on that
reference as a basis for rejection. References are selected as being
reasonably pertinent to the problem based on the judgment of a person
having ordinary skill in the art.” In re Kahn, 441 F.3d 977, 986-87 (Fed.
Cir. 2006). “A reference is reasonably pertinent if, even though it may be in
a different field from that of the inventor’s endeavor, it is one which,
because of the matter with which it deals, logically would have commended
Appeal 2008-4438
Application 10/771,890

19
itself to an inventor’s attention in considering his problem.” In re Clay, 966
F.2d 656, 659 (Fed. Cir. 1992).
We find that both Chang and Russell are reasonably pertinent to the
particular problem being solved by the Appellant. Appellant’s particular
problem is providing an accessible, updatable information database used to
located merchants and products. (FF 8-9.) Chang’s is concerned with
providing efficient location of product information (FF 13-14), including
within a shopping mall. Russell is concerned with creating an efficient way
to generate information for an attendee at a tradeshow to find a particular
vendor or product. (FF 20-21.)
We have considered all the Appellant’s arguments challenging the
Examiner’s prima facie case of obviousness but, for the foregoing reasons,
do not find them persuasive as to error in the Examiner’s rejection of claim 1
as unpatentable over Chang in view of Russell.

Claim 8
The Appellant argues against the rejection of claim 8 for the same
reasons used to argue against the rejection of claim 1. (App. Br. 17). For
the same reasons we found these same arguments unpersuasive as to the
rejection of claim 1, we find them equally unpersuasive as to error in the
rejection of claim 8.

Claim 2
The Appellant argues that the combination of Chang and Russell does
not describe using the internet as the computer network recites in claim 1.
(App. Br. 19-21.) The Examiner contends that the combination of Chang
Appeal 2008-4438
Application 10/771,890

20
and Russell would lead one of ordinary skill to use the internet for the
claimed computer network. (Final Rejection 7.)
We find that one of ordinary skill would be led by Chang and Russell
to use the internet as the computer network. Claim 1 requires the computer
network to be associated with the database and connected to the computer
terminal and claim 2 limits the computer network to be the internet. Russell
describes that the Internet can be used to upload information via a webpage
to a database. (FF 24.) Russell also describes that a computer at the
tradeshow can be used to access the database. (FF 27.)
Therefore, we hold that the Appellant has not shown that the
Examiner erred in rejecting claim 2 as unpatentable over Chang in view of
Russell.

Claim 3
The Appellant argues that the combination of Chang and Russell does
not describe the database being contained on a remote server and accessed
by a website as recited by claim 3. (App. Br. 20 and 22.) The Examiner
contends that Russell describes a remote server for maintaining the database
and website for access to the database. (Answer 7.)
We find that one of ordinary skill would be led by Chang and Russell
to contain the database on a remote server and access the database by a
website. Claim 3 recites, “a remote server wherein the database is contained
on the remote server; and a website providing access to the database.”
Russell describes that information is collected via the Internet and compiled
onto a database (FF 24-25). While Russell indicates that the database can be
uploaded on a webpage (FF 26), it is common knowledge to those in the
Appeal 2008-4438
Application 10/771,890

21
computer art that access to a database from a web page on the Internet is and
can be normally accomplished by using a terminal some distance away from
the database being accessed. (FF 5.)
Therefore, we hold that the Appellant has not shown that the
Examiner erred in rejecting claim 3 as unpatentable over Chang in view of
Russell.

Claim 9
The Appellant argues against the rejection of claim 9 for the same
reasons used to argue against the rejection of claim 2. (App. Br. 20-21.)
Accordingly, Appellant has not shown that the Examiner erred in rejecting
claim 2, because we found them unpersuasive as to that rejection, we find
them equally unpersuasive as to error in the rejection of claim 9.

Claim 10
Appellant argues that while Russell discloses accessing the database
wirelessly as recited in dependent claim 10, Russell does not teach that the
database contains multi-dealer retail establishment information recited in
independent claim 8. (App. Br. 21.) Claim 10 depends on claim 8. The
Examiner contends that Russell teach wireless access to a database.
(Answer 6.)
We find that one of ordinary skill would be led by Chang and Russell
to wirelessly access a database that contains the multi-dealer retail
establishment information. Chang describes a database containing multi-
dealer retail establishment information. (FF 15-18.) Russell describes
accessing the databases wirelessly. (FF 27.) When combined, Chang and
Appeal 2008-4438
Application 10/771,890

22
Russell teach a database containing multi-dealer retail establishment
information that is accessed wirelessly. “The combination of familiar
elements according to known methods is likely to be obvious when it does
no more than yield predictable results.” KSR at 1739. In that regard, the
Appellant has not come forward with evidence of unexpected results. (FF
43.)
We hold that the Appellant has not shown that the Examiner erred in
rejecting claim 10 as unpatentable over Chang in view of Russell.
Claim 11
The Appellant argues against the rejection of claim 11 for the same
reasons used to argue against the rejection of claim 3. (App. Br. 22.)
Accordingly, Appellant has not shown that the Examiner erred in rejecting
claim 3, because we found them unpersuasive as to that rejection, we find
them equally unpersuasive as to error in the rejection of claim 11.

Claim 13
The Appellant argues against the rejection of claim 13 for the same
reasons used to argue against the rejection of claim 3. (App. Br. 22-23.)
Accordingly, Appellant has not shown that the Examiner erred in rejecting
claim 3, because we found them unpersuasive as to that rejection, we find
them equally unpersuasive as to error in the rejection of claim 13.

Claim 15
The Appellant argues against the rejection of claim 15 for the same
reasons used to argue against the rejection of claim 3. (App. Br. 23-24.)
Accordingly, Appellant has not shown that the Examiner erred in rejecting
Appeal 2008-4438
Application 10/771,890

23
claim 3, because we found them unpersuasive as to that rejection, we find
them equally unpersuasive as to error in the rejection of claim 15.

Claim 18
The Appellant argues that the combination of Chang and Russell does
not describe the item information including geographic information as
recited in claim 18. (App. Br. 24.) The Examiner contends that the
information of the location of a product in a particular store in Chang
constitutes geographic information. (Answer 6.)
We find that Chang describes geographical information associated
with an item for sale. Claim 18 states, “wherein the item information
includes geographical information associated with the item for sale.” The
ordinary and customary meaning of geographic is belonging to characteristic
of a particular region. (FF 6-7.) Change describes product data in a
database including location of a product in a particular store. (FF 17.) The
location of a product in a particular store is information about which region
the product belongs to. Therefore, Chang describes item information
including geographic information.
We hold that the Appellant has not shown that the Examiner erred in
rejecting claim 18 as unpatentable over Chang in view of Russell.

The rejection of claims 4, 5, 7, 12, 14, 17, 19 and 20
Claim 4
The Appellant argues that even though Pugliese describes that a
merchant is able to login to an application to update existing products in
Appeal 2008-4438
Application 10/771,890

24
their respective catalogues as recited in claim 4, the merchant and products
are not confined to a multi-dealer retail establishment. (App. Br. 28-29.)
Claim 4 recites a means for modifying the merchant information in
the database of claim 1. Claim 1 requires that the item information relates to
items only locatable within the interior space of the multi-dealer retail
establishment. As discussed above with regards to claim 1, Russell only
describes inputting information from vendors exhibiting at the trade show.
(FF 22 and 25.) Therefore, when Chang, Russell, and Pugliese are
combined, the merchant information in the database relates only to
merchants in the multi-dealer retail establishment.
We hold that Appellant has not shown that the Examiner erred in
rejecting claim 4 as unpatentable over Chang in view of Russell.

Claim 5
The Appellant argues that the combination of Chang, Russell, and
Pugliese does not describe a password associated with a merchant for
accessing the merchant information in the database as required by claim 5
because Pugliese merely describes a lost password processing function. The
Examiner contends that Pugliese describes that a registered merchant can
update merchant information and receives a password. (Final Rejection 13.)
We find that one of ordinary skill in the art would know that the
password obtained from the lost password processing function is used to log
onto the computer system to update merchant information. While Pugliese
does not expressly teach that the password is used to logon to the computer
system, Pugliese does teach that the merchant receives the password (FF 31),
logs onto the computer system (FF 30) and updates information (FF 32)
Appeal 2008-4438
Application 10/771,890

25
associated with the merchant. Given these teachings, one of ordinary skill in
the art would infer that the password is used in logging onto the computer
system to update merchant information. (FF 42.)
We hold that Appellant has not shown that the Examiner erred in
rejecting claim 5 as unpatentable over Chang in view of Russell.
Claim 7
The Appellant argues that even though Pugliese describes means for
inputting and accessing an image in a database, as recited in claim 7,
Pugliese does not confine the information to merchants and products in the
interior space of a multi-dealer retail establishment. (App. Br. 31.) The
Examiner relies upon Chang and Russell to teach a means of inputting
information and Pugliese for making the type of information image
information. (Final Rejection 13 and 15.)
Claim 7 recites a means for inputting and accessing an image
associated with an item in the database recited in claim 1. Claim 1 requires
that the item information relates to items only locatable within the interior
space of the multi-dealer retail establishment. As discussed above with
regards to claim 1, Russell only describes inputting information from
vendors exhibiting at the trade show. (FF 22 and 25.) Therefore, when
Chang, Russell, and Pugliese are combined, the item information in the
database relates only to items in the multi-dealer retail establishment.
We hold that Appellant has not shown that the Examiner erred in
rejecting claim 7 as unpatentable over Chang in view of Russell.

Claim 12
Appeal 2008-4438
Application 10/771,890

26
The Appellant argues that Pugliese does not teach that merchant
information is stored in a database or that the merchant information can be
modified via the computer network as required by claim 12 even though
Pugliese describes a merchant information system that manages the
registration of merchants, locations and departments. (App. Br. 31-32.) The
Examiner relies upon Chang and Russell to teach storing merchant
information in a database via a computer network and Pugliese for the idea
of providing a second access to the database. (Final Rejection 14.)
Claim 12 states, “providing a second access to the database for
modifying the merchant information in the database via the computer
network.” As previously discussed with regards to claims 1, Russell
describes using a webpage to input vendor information into a database. (FF
24-25.) Pugliese describes allowing both merchants and merchant
administrators to the ability to update merchant registration. (FF 33.)
Therefore, when Chang, Russell and Pugliese are combined, a second access
to the database via the computer network is provided.
We hold that Appellant has not shown that the Examiner erred in
rejecting claim 12 as unpatentable over Chang in view of Russell.

Claim 14
The Appellant argues against the rejection of claim 14 for the same
reasons used to argue against the rejection of claim 5. (App. Br. 32-33.)
Accordingly, Appellant has not shown that the Examiner erred in rejecting
claim 5, because we found them unpersuasive as to that rejection, we find
them equally unpersuasive as to error in the rejection of claim 14.

Appeal 2008-4438
Application 10/771,890

27
Claim 17
The Appellant argues against the rejection of claim 17 for the same
reasons used to argue against the rejection of claim 7. (App. Br. 33-34.)
Accordingly, Appellant has not shown that the Examiner erred in rejecting
claim 7, because we found them unpersuasive as to that rejection, we find
them equally unpersuasive as to error in the rejection of claim 17.
Claim 19
The Appellant argues that Pugliese does not teach a system to input
the user information into the database via the computer network as recited in
claim 19 even though Pugliese describes a manage personal folder function
that stores user information and allows users to maintain a list of products
and merchants of interest to themselves. (App. Br. 35.) The Examiner relies
upon Chang and Russell to teach that a user can input search information via
a computer network and Pugliese to teach inputting user information into the
database. (Final Rejection 15-16.)
Claim 19 recites, “inputting user information into the database via the
computer system wherein the user information is associated with the user.”
As previously discussed with regards to claims 1, Russell describes using a
webpage to input vendor information into a database. (FF 24-25.) Pugliese
describes providing a shopper profile and a manager personal folder function
containing information inputted by the shopper. (FF 34-35.) Therefore,
when Chang, Russell and Pugliese are combined, a shopper can input user
information via the computer network.
We hold that Appellants have not shown that the Examiner erred in
rejecting claim 19 as unpatentable over Chang in view of Russell.

Appeal 2008-4438
Application 10/771,890

28
Claim 20
The Appellant argues that Pugliese does not teach a system to input
the inventory of the merchant into the database via the computer system as
required by claim 20 even though Pugliese describes an external inventory
system and an inventory access system that provides the ability to query
catalog inventory availability at a store location level. (App. Br. 36-37.)
The Examiner relies upon Chang and Russell to teach that a user can input
search information via a computer network and Pugliese to teach inputting
inventory information into the database. (Final Rejection 16-17.)
Claim 20 recites, “inputting an inventory of the merchant into the
database via the computer system.” As previously discussed with regards to
claim 1, Russell describes using a webpage to input vendor information into
a database. (FF 24-25.) Pugliese describes providing merchant inventory
information in a database. (FF 36.) Therefore, when Chang, Russell, and
Pugliese are combined, a merchant can input inventory information into the
database via the computer system.
We hold that Appellant has not shown that the Examiner erred in
rejecting claim 20 as unpatentable over Chang in view of Russell.

The rejection of claims 6 and 16
Claim 6
The Appellant argues that Crossman does not teach associating item
information with the merchant displayed on the map as required by claim 6
even though Crossman describes displaying an animated map and how to get
to a store on a kiosk at a mall. (App. Br. 40-41.) The Examiner relies upon
Chang and Russell to lead one of ordinary skill in the art to the step of
Appeal 2008-4438
Application 10/771,890

29
locating an item at a merchant in a multi-retail establishment and Crossman
to describe a kiosk at a mall which points out a product location and displays
a map of the location. (Final Rejection 16-17.)
Claim 6 recites, “an electronic map associated with the multi-dealer
retail establishment wherein the location of the merchant associated with the
item information is displayed on the electronic map.” As previously
discussed with regards to claim 1, Chang describes a multi-retail
establishment. (FF 15.) Crossman describes associating item information
with a merchant and displaying the location of the merchant on a map. (FF
38.) Therefore, when Chang, Russell, and Crossman are combined, one of
ordinary skill is led to displaying a map with the location of a merchant
associated with item information in a multi-retail establishment.
We hold that Appellant has not shown that the Examiner erred in
rejecting claim 6 as unpatentable over Chang in view of Russell.

Claim 16
The Appellant argues against the rejection of claim 16 for the same
reasons used to argue against the rejection of claim 6. (App. Br. 41-42.)
Accordingly, Appellant has not shown that the Examiner erred in rejecting
claim 6, because we found them unpersuasive as to that rejection, we find
them equally unpersuasive as to error in the rejection of claim 16.

CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
We conclude that the Appellant has not shown that the Examiner
erred in rejecting claims 1-3, 8-13, 15 and 18 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as
unpatentable over Chang in view of Russell, claim 4, 5, 7, 12, 14, 17, 19,
Appeal 2008-4438
Application 10/771,890

30
and 20 over Change in view of Russell and further in view of Pugliese, and
claims 6 and 16 over Chang in view of Russell and further in view of
Crossman.

DECISION
The decision of the Examiner to reject claims 1-20 is affirmed.
No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with
this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a). See 37 C.F.R.
§ 1.136(a)(1)(iv) (2007).

AFFIRMED

hh

PATENTS+TMS, P.C.
2849 W. ARMITAGE AVE.
CHICAGO, IL 60647