Ex Parte Wang et alDownload PDFPatent Trial and Appeal BoardJul 12, 201612453484 (P.T.A.B. Jul. 12, 2016) Copy Citation 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 Copy with citationCopy as parenthetical citation