Ex Parte Wang et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Jul 12, 2016

12453484 (P.T.A.B. Jul. 12, 2016)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE
12/453,484 05/12/2009
134795 7590 07114/2016
MICHAEL BEST & FRIEDRICH LLP (DC)
100 E WISCONSIN A VENUE
Suite 3300
MILWAUKEE, WI 53202
FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
Tiejun (Ronald) Wang
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.
W AN-0020/RE/DIV 2262
EXAMINER
DANNEMAN, PAUL
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
3627
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
07/14/2016 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):
DCipdocket@michaelbest.com
sbj ames@michaelbest.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Exparte TIEJUN (RONALD) WANG,
XIMING WANG,
and TIEHONG WANG
Appeal2015-003922
Application 12/453,484
Technology Center 3600
Before ANTON W. PETTING, JOSEPH A. FISCHETTI, and
NINA L. MEDLOCK, Administrative Patent Judges.
PETTING, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
STATEMENT OF THE CASE 1
Tiejun (Ronald) Wang, Ximing Wang, and Tiehong Wang (Appellants)
seek review under 35 U.S.C. § 134 of a final rejection of claims 17-23, the
only claims pending in the application on appeal. Oral arguments were
presented June 7, 2016. We have jurisdiction over the appeal pursuant to
35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
1 Our decision will make reference to the Appellants' Appeal Brief ("App.
Br.," filed March 10, 2014) andReplyBrief("ReplyBr.," filed August 12,
Appeal2015-003922
Application 12/453,484
The Appellants invented a way of processing e-commerce purchases.
Specification 1:7-13.
An understanding of the invention can be derived from a reading of
exemplary claim 17, which is reproduced below (bracketed matter and some
paragraphing added).
17. An online method for conducting online buying comprising:
[ 1] providing a web server with a readily refreshed cache,
configured to provide on the web server a real-time
purchasing/ sales environment
for a plurality of merchants
having product information on the web server;
[2] receiving at the web server at least one communication
message
that indicates a buyer needs requirement;
[3] making the buyer needs requirement accessible,
via the web server,
to at least some of the plurality of merchants;
[ 4] generating one or more merchant responses to the buyer
needs requirement,
and
the one or more merchant responses defining one or more
merchant bids to fulfill the buyer needs requirement,
the one or more merchant responses being generated via
access to the information in the readily refreshed cache
to avoid submission delay for merchant input in
response to the buyer needs requirement;
2014), and the Examiner's Answer ("Ans.," mailed June 12, 2014), and
Final Action ("Final Act.," mailed December 17, 2012).
2
Appeal2015-003922
Application 12/453,484
[5] making the merchant responses accessible to the buyer in
real-time.
The Examiner relies upon the following prior art:
Conklin US 6,336,105 Bl
Obrecht US 7,630,919 Bl
Jan. 1, 2002
Dec. 8, 2009
Claims 17-22 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 102(e) as anticipated by
Obrecht.
Claim 23 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over
Obrecht and Conklin.
ISSUES
The issues of anticipation and obviousness tum primarily on whether
Obrecht describes providing some real-time environment in support of
purchasing and sales and whether Obrecht describes using a database local
to a web server to help a vendor in such communications.
FACTS PERTINENT TO THE ISSUES
The following enumerated Findings of Fact (FF) are believed to be
supported by a preponderance of the evidence.
Facts Related to Claim Construction
01. The disclosure contains no lexicographic definition of "cache."
02. The disclosure contains no lexicographic definition of "real-
time."
3
Appeal2015-003922
Application 12/453,484
03. The ordinary meaning of real-time is the timing or arrangement
allowing a process, such as an exchange of remarks, to occur
normally, as without delay or asynchronism. 2
Facts Related to Appellants' Disclosure
04. The server 32 is provided with the facility whereby each of
merchants may provide products available for purchase into a
database on the server which functions similar to a cache in a
computer. A merchant may refresh or update the stored data, as
needs required, at any time, thereby permitting the server to
maintain the latest information regarding available product. Thus,
a merchant in response to notification of purchase by the
server 32, may take immediate steps to update information in
relation to inventory and anticipated production. Spec. 4:32-39.
Facts Related to the Prior Art
Obrecht
05. Obrecht is directed to facilitating a consumers procurement
process from manufacturers or value-added resellers. Obrecht
1 :9-11.
2 The American Heritage Dictionary of the English Language, Fifth Edition
2015 by Houghton Mifflin Harcourt Publishing Company
https://www.ahdictionary.com/word/search.html?q=real-time
4
Appeal2015-003922
Application 12/453,484
06. Obrecht describes an automated electronic information
procurement system allowing a buyer to spontaneously and
simultaneously request product information from multiple sellers
of a product in a selected area. Obrecht 2:3-8.
07. Obrecht describes a buyer entering a request for goods or
services into a computer. The information is transferred via the
internet to the Automotive Live Market Exchange System
(ALMES) computer. The ALMES computer receives a request
from the buyer and operates to select at least two sellers from a
plurality of prestored sellers (prestored in a memory) based on the
buyers input request and other criteria related to the sellers,
contained in a database stored in memory. The central computer
forwards the buyer request to the selected sellers. Sellers are
continuously monitoring for requests. Sellers respond based on
the request. This information is then received by the ALMES
computer. Obrecht 3:41-65.
08. Obrecht describes the seller evaluating an RFQ, transmitting a
quote to the ALMES computer and entered into the ALMES
database. Obrecht 4:34--38.
09. Obrecht describes a real-time conduit for buyers to specify the
exact product desired with specific criteria and for sellers for
transmitting information back to the buyers on the specific goods
requested. Obrecht 10:4--8.
5
Appeal2015-003922
Application 12/453,484
Conklin
10. Conklin is directed to systems for conducting electronic
negotiations. Conklin 1:8-11.
11. Conklin describes how most banking systems are designed to
work with Unites States based systems. Conklin 11: 13-31.
ANALYSIS
Claims 17-22 rejected under 35 USC§ 102(e) as anticipated by Obrecht
We are not persuaded by Appellants' argument that Obrecht does not
disclose a real time purchasing and sales environment. App. Br. 7-10.
Obrecht explicitly describes providing a real-time conduit for such
purchasing and sales. The Specification does not lexicographically define
"real-time" and the claim does not narrow the scope of what is meant by a
purchasing and sales environment, how the phrase "purchasing and sales"
modifies the noun "environment," or how the phrase "real-time" modifies
the phrase "purchasing and sales environment." The ordinary meaning of
real-time is the timing or arrangement allowing a process, such as an
exchange of remarks, to occur normally, as without delay or asynchronism.
This is precisely what a real time communication conduit provides. Further,
such a real-time communications environment for the purpose of purchasing
and sales is tautologically a real-time purchasing and sales environment.
We are not persuaded by Appellants' argument that Obrecht does not
disclose merchant responses being generated via access to the information in
the readily refreshed cache to avoid submission delay for merchant input in
response to the buyer needs requirement; and making the merchant
6
Appeal2015-003922
Application 12/453,484
responses accessible to the buyer in real-time. App. Br. 10-13. First, the
Appellants' disclosure clarifies that such a cache is not the ordinary meaning
of cache as in specialized computer registers, but instead a local database
that simulates the function of a cache by being local. As the Examiner finds
(Final Act. 4 ), Obrecht explicitly describes providing a vendor database.
Because the database already contains vendor information, vendors need not
enter information already in the database. As a result, when a vendor
submits a response, the response is generated at the server via access to the
vendor information in the readily refreshed database (cache) to avoid
submission delay from otherwise having to re-enter such vendor data for
merchant input in response to the buyer needs requirement. As to making
the merchant responses accessible to the buyer in real-time, this is another
instance of Obrecht' s real-time communication conduit.
Claim 23 rejected under 35 US.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Obrecht
and Conklin
As to separately argued claim 23, reciting that the web server is located
in the same nation state as the buyer is located, this is both predictable and
irrelevant. It is predictable because most sales are local rather than long
distance, so the vendor and web server would be at least predictably in the
same nation state as the buyer. It is irrelevant because claim 23 is directed
to an online system, which is a machine. As to structural inventions, such
claims must be distinguished from the prior art in terms of structure rather
than function, see, e.g., In re Schreiber, 128 F.3d 1473, 1477-78 (Fed. Cir.
1997). In order to satisfy the functional limitations in an apparatus claim,
however, the prior art apparatus as disclosed must be capable of performing
7
Appeal2015-003922
Application 12/453,484
the claimed function. Id. at 1478. The location of a buyer relative to a web
server is neither structural nor functional, and so undeserving of patentable
weight, and cannot distinguish a claim over the prior art.
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
The rejection of claims 17-22 under 35 U.S.C. § 102( e) as anticipated by
Obrecht is proper.
The rejection of claim 23 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over
Obrecht and Conklin is proper.
DECISION
The rejection of claims 17-23 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)(l)(iv) (2011).
AFFIRMED
8