Ex Parte Nash et alDownload PDFPatent Trial and Appeal BoardOct 31, 201311323792 (P.T.A.B. Oct. 31, 2013) Copy Citation UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE ____________ BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD ____________ Ex parte ADAM NASH, JOSH LOFTUS, DANIEL SILVER, and DAVID RACCAH ____________ Appeal 2012-009934 Application 11/323,792 Technology Center 3600 ____________ Before MURRIEL E. CRAWFORD, JOSEPH A. FISCHETTI, and BIBHU R. MOHANTY, Administrative Patent Judges. CRAWFORD, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL Appeal 2012-009934 Application 11/323,792 2 STATEMENT OF THE CASE Appellants seek our review under 35 U.S.C. § 134 of the Examiner’s final decision rejecting claims 10 to 26. We have jurisdiction over the appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). We AFFIRM. BACKGROUND Appellants’ invention is directed to a system and method for applying seller and item filters in a network-based transaction facility. Claim 10 is illustrative: 10. A system comprising: a processor configured to apply a qualification filter to one or more items listed on a network based transaction facility to identify one or more qualified items, and to place the qualified items on a network based elite transaction facility such that the network based elite transaction facility comprises a subset of qualified items identified by the qualification filter. The Examiner relies on the following prior art references as evidence of unpatentability: Skorski U.S. 2004/0012631 A1 Jan. 22, 2004 Albazz U.S. 7,620,570 B2 Nov. 17, 2009 Wiseman U.S. 7,725,477 B2 May 25, 2010 Auctionmapper™ – It’s like radar for eBAY auctions. (http://web.archive.org/web/20050123233211/http://auctionmapper.com/) (last accessed Sep. 1, 2011) (hereinafter “Auctionmapper”). BidXS Welcomes Bidder's Edge Users! (http://web.archive.org/web/20010504000442/http://www.bidxs.com/be/) (last accessed Dec. 2, 2011) (hereinafter “BidXs”). Appeal 2012-009934 Application 11/323,792 3 Appellants appeal the following rejections: Claims 10 to 12, 17 to 19, and 24 to 26 under 35 U.S.C. § 102(a) as anticipated by Auctionmapper. Claims 10, 11, 15 to 18, and 22 to 25 under 35 U.S.C. § 102(e) as anticipated by Wiseman. Claims 10 to 26 under 35 U.S.C. § 102(e) as anticipated by Albazz. Claim 26 under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) as anticipated by BidXs. Claim 26 under 35 U.S.C. § 102(e) as being anticipated by Skorski. ISSUES Did the Examiner err in rejecting the claims 10 to 12, 17 to 19, and 24 to 26 as anticipated by Auctionmapper because Auctionmapper does not disclose an elite transaction facility? Did the Examiner err in rejecting claims 10, 11, 15 to 18, and 22 to 25 as anticipated by Wiseman because Wiseman does not disclose filtering items from one transaction facility and placing those items on another transaction facility? Did the Examiner err in rejecting claims 10 to 26 as anticipated by Albazz because Albazz does not disclose an elite transaction facility? Did the Examiner err in rejecting claim 26 as anticipated by BidXs because BidXs does not disclose a subset of qualified items or a separate elite transaction facility? Did the Examiner err in rejecting claim 26 as anticipated by Skorski because Skorski does not disclose an elite transaction facility or first and second domain address? Appeal 2012-009934 Application 11/323,792 4 FACTUAL FINDINGS We adopt the Examiner’s findings regarding the teachings of Auctionmapper, Wiseman, BidXs, and Skorski as our own. Ans. 5 to 15 and 22 to 25. Additional findings of fact appear in the Analysis that follows. ANALYSIS Anticipation by Auctionmapper We are not persuaded of error on the part of the Examiner by Appellants’ argument that Auctionmapper does not disclose an elite transaction facility because an elite transaction facility requires that the sellers have been filtered, and Auctionmapper does not filter sellers. We find that Auctionmapper discloses on page 1: (1) a box that may be selected for sellers that only accept paypal, (2) a box that may be selected so that only sellers that offer paypal buyer protection plans are shown, and (3) a box to select the distance the seller is from the buyer. In our view, this disclosure in Auctionmapper is a disclosure of filtering sellers. In view of the foregoing, we will sustain the Examiner’s rejection of claim 10. We will also sustain the rejection as it is directed to claims 11, 12, 17 to 19, and 24 to 26 because the Appellants have not argued the separate patentability of these claims. Anticipation by Wiseman We are not persuaded of error on the part of the Examiner by Appellants’ argument that Wiseman does not disclose filtering items from one transaction facility and placing those items on another transaction facility. We agree with and adopt as our own the Examiner’s findings in Appeal 2012-009934 Application 11/323,792 5 regard to this rejection at pages 11 to 12 and the Examiner’s response to Appellants’ rejection at pages 33 to 36. In particular, we agree with the Examiner that as Wiseman discloses that a user can filter sellers so that only qualified sellers are displayed on the new filtered page, Wiseman does disclose placing items on another transaction facility. In view of the foregoing, we will sustain the Examiner’s rejection of claim 10. We will also sustain this rejection as it is directed to claims 11 and 15 to 18, 22 and 23 because the Appellants have not argued the separate patentability of these claims. We will also sustain the Examiner’s rejection of claims 24 and 25 as anticipated by Wiseman because we are not persuaded of error on the part of the Examiner by Appellants’ argument that Wiseman does not disclose applying a qualification filter to one or more sellers. We agree with the Examiner’s finding on page 6 of the Answer, that the disclosure at column 2, lines 6 to 17 of filtering of sellers such that only trusted sellers and sellers in a social group are shown is a disclosure of applying a qualification filter to one or more sellers. Anticipation by Albazz We will not sustain the anticipation rejection based on the Albazz reference because we agree with the Appellants that Albazz does not disclose an elite transaction facility. Appellants’ Specification discloses that within a network-based facility for sellers to list items for sale, filters are used to select a subset of sellers and their items for participation in an elite transaction facility. A process is performed to apply filters to identify a group of sellers (para. Appeal 2012-009934 Application 11/323,792 6 [0024]). As such, we find that an elite transaction facility within the meaning of the present application includes filters so that a subset of sellers can be selected. The Examiner finds that Albazz discloses the elite transaction facility at column 9, lines 57 to 68; column 10, lines 1 to 15, and lines 62 to 66; and column 11, lines 19 to 34 (Ans. 36). However, we find that these portions of Albazz disclose filtering buyers by sellers and filtering products and conditions of sale by buyers, but there is no disclosure of an elite transaction facility having filtered sellers. In view of the foregoing, we will not sustain the rejection of claim 10 and claims 11 to 16 dependent thereon as anticipated by Albazz. We will also not sustain the rejection as it is directed to claims 17 to 26 because each of these claims requires an elite transaction facility. Anticipation by BidXs We are not persuaded of error on the part of the Examiner by Appellants’ argument that BidXs does not disclose a separate network based elite transaction facility. We initially note that claim 26 does not require a separate elite transaction facility but rather claim 26 recites a network based elite transaction facility comprising a first domain and a network based elite transaction facility, which comprises a second domain. We agree with the Examiner and find that the disclosure depicted in Figure on page 2 and on page 38 of the Answer discloses that sellers on a first site are filtered based on whether they sell their products on Amazon, eBay, or Yahoo Auctions. As such, BidXs discloses an elite transaction facility. We also agree that the disclosure in BidXs that the user leaves one site to purchase on another site Appeal 2012-009934 Application 11/323,792 7 such as Amazon, eBay, or Yahoo, BidXs discloses one network facility on one domain and another elite network transaction facility on another domain. In view of the foregoing, we will sustain the Examiner’s rejection of claim 26. Anticipation by Skorski We will not sustain the Examiner’s rejection of claim 26 as anticipated by Skorski because we agree with the Appellants that Skorski does not disclose a network based elite transaction facility. We find that Skorski discloses that products are filtered according to different populations of users and that different retailers could have their catalogs hosted on the same server (paras [0009]; [0017]). However, there is no disclosure of filtering sellers to form an elite transaction facility. DECISION We affirm the following rejections: Claims 10 to 12, 17 to 19, and 24 to 26 under 35 U.S.C. § 102(a) as anticipated by Auctionmapper. Claims 10, 11, 15 to 18, and 22 to 25 under 35 U.S.C. § 102(e) as anticipated by Wiseman. Claim 26 under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) as anticipated by BidXs. We reverse the following rejections: Claims 10 to 26 under 35 U.S.C. § 102(e) as anticipated by Albazz. Claim 26 under 35 U.S.C. § 102(e) as being anticipated by Skorski. Appeal 2012-009934 Application 11/323,792 8 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) (2011). AFFIRMED-IN-PART hh Copy with citationCopy as parenthetical citation