Ex Parte Chieu et al

Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences

Sep 27, 2010

10420499 (B.P.A.I. Sep. 27, 2010)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
____________

BEFORE THE BOARD OF PATENT APPEALS
AND INTERFERENCES
____________

Ex parte TRIEU C. CHIEU and AARON A. GUSE
____________

Appeal 2009-014193
Application 10/420,499
Technology Center 3600
____________

Before MURRIEL E. CRAWFORD, ANTON W. FETTING, and JOSEPH
A. FISCHETTI, Administrative Patent Judges.

CRAWFORD, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL1

1 The two-month time period for filing an appeal or commencing a civil
action, as recited in 37 C.F.R. § 1.304, or for filing a request for rehearing,
as recited in 37 C.F.R. § 41.52, begins to run from the “MAIL DATE”
(paper delivery mode) or the “NOTIFICATION DATE” (electronic delivery
mode) shown on the PTOL-90A cover letter attached to this decision.

Appeal 2009-014193
Application 10/420,499

2
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Appellants seek our review under 35 U.S.C. § 134 (2002) of the
Examiner’s final decision rejecting claims 1 to 27. We have jurisdiction
over the appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b) (2002).
We AFFIRM.
BACKGROUND
Appellants’ invention is directed to a method, system, and program
product for receiving bids for multiple auctions and presenting real time
auction results. (Spec., para. [0001]).
Claim 1 is illustrative:
1. A method for receiving bids in a plurality of
auctions and presenting real-time results,
comprising:
accepting a plurality of selections of
auctions from a user, each selection in the plurality
of selections corresponding to a unique item
having a unique type and a unique class;
presenting a gallery web page listing the
plurality of selections to the user from a portal
program, wherein the gallery web page includes a
respective field for user entry of a bid by the user
for every one of the plurality of selections;
receiving from the user an updated version
of the gallery web page including an entered bid
for at least two of the plurality of selections from
the user entered on the gallery web page being
received;
submitting the entered bids; and
presenting a stream of real-time results of
the at least two of the plurality of selections to the
user,
wherein the real-time results are updated
immediately upon update of information.
Appeal 2009-014193
Application 10/420,499

3
Appellants appeal the following rejection:
Claims 1 to 27 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over
Ubid.com2 (http://web.archive.org/web/20010119105100/http://ubid.com/)
(last visited Aug. 13, 2007) (hereinafter “Ubid.com”) in view of OpenSite.com3
(http://web.archive.org/web/19990209021224/opensite.com/index.html)
(last visited Mar. 28, 2006) (hereinafter “OpenSite.Com”).

ISSUE
Did the Examiner err in rejecting the claims under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a)
because Ubid.com in view of OpenSite.com fails to disclose a method
including the step of accepting a plurality of selections of auctions from a
user and presenting a web page listing to the user from a portal program?

FACTUAL FINDINGS
We adopt all of the Examiner’s findings as our own. (Ans. 3 to 5).

ANALYSIS
The Appellants’ argument that the cited prior art does not disclose a
method including the step of accepting a plurality of selections of auctions
as claimed is unconvincing. Appellants argue that OpenSite.com discloses
entering information about the user not a plurality of potentially unrelated
things such as auctions of unique items.
Ubid.com discloses a page that presents multiple items for bid. In
Ubid.com, the bidder clicks on a link associated with the desired item on the

2 The Examiner has renumbered the pages for this reference as pages 1 to 14.
3 The Examiner has renumbered the pages for this reference as pages 1 to 79.
Appeal 2009-014193
Application 10/420,499

4
page to bid on the item. The present application uses a page that presents
multiple items for bid, and a user uses respective fields on that page to enter
bids and may do so for a plurality of items simultaneously. But, claim 1
does not recite that the bids are submitted using the respective fields on the
page. Claim 1 recites only that the bids are submitted, without reciting what
causes the submission to be made and therefore does not connect the entry of
the bids on the page with the submission of the bids. As such, the web page,
as claimed, serves as a data entry device without a functional relationship to
the bid submission process.
OpenSite.com discloses that a user can bid on a plurality of different
items at the same time on the same bid form, but does not recite how a user
would enter this bid. OpenSite.com does however disclose a form for
entering various forms of unrelated information. After completion of the
form, the entire form with all data field entries can be submitted by actuating
the submit button. As we found supra, claim 1 does not require the web
page to cause the bids to be submitted. As such, Appellants’ gallery page, in
terms of claim requirements, is used to enter information without a recited
functional relationship to how bids are submitted. Ubid.com discloses a
form for entering information. The recitation of the type of information
entered is nonfunctional descriptive matter not relevant to patentability
because the claim does not recite that that specific information, i.e., bids are
functionally related to the form. In re Ngai, 367 F.3d 1336, 1339 (Fed. Cir.
2004); cf. In re Gulack, 703 F.2d 1381, 1385 (Fed. Cir. 1983) (when
descriptive material is not functionally related to the substrate, the
descriptive material will not distinguish the invention from the prior art in
terms of patentability).
Appeal 2009-014193
Application 10/420,499

5
Thus, we agree with the Examiner that as OpenSite.com discloses (1)
that information can be submitted using a form with multiple fields, (2) bids
on different objects can be submitted simultaneously on a bid form and (3) a
way of submitting information using a form, it would have been obvious to a
person of ordinary skill in the art to use the form submission process
disclosed in OpenSite.com to enter multiple bids.
We are not persuaded of error on the part of the Examiner by
Appellants’ argument that Ubid.com does not disclose a portal program. We
agree with the Examiner that the term “portal program” is a way of
delivering web content as is done in Ubid.com via some web access
program. We note that the Specification discloses that a “portal program”
indicates that a portal server is used that delivers web content to web users
(Spec. 9).
We also agree with the Examiner that the recitation of a “stream of
real-time results” is met by OpenSite.com’s disclosure on page 54 that all
auctions are live and interactive and take place in real time. The Examiner is
correct that in order for OpenSite.com to be interactive it must be real-time
otherwise a bidder would not know that a new higher bid is needed.
In view of the foregoing, we will sustain the Examiner’s rejection of
claim 1. We will also sustain the rejection as it is directed to claims 2 to 27
because the Appellants have not argued the separate patentability of these
claims.
DECISION
We AFFIRM the decision of the Examiner.
Appeal 2009-014193
Application 10/420,499

6
TIME PERIOD
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) (2007).

AFFIRMED

hh

HOFFMAN WARNICK, LLC
75 STATE ST.
14TH FLOOR
ALBANY, NY 12207