Ex Parte Femenia et al

Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences

May 1, 2012

11004699 (B.P.A.I. May. 1, 2012)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE 1
___________ 2
3
BEFORE THE BOARD OF PATENT APPEALS 4
AND INTERFERENCES 5
___________ 6
7
Ex parte NORA FEMENIA and BRENDA POMERANCE 8
___________ 9
10
Appeal 2010-004950 11
Application 11/004,699 12
Technology Center 3700 13
___________ 14
15
16
Before ANTON W. FETTING, BIBHU R. MOHANTY, and 17
MEREDITH C. PETRAVICK, Administrative Patent Judges. 18
FETTING, Administrative Patent Judge. 19
DECISION ON APPEAL 20
Appeal 2010-004950
Application 11/004,699

2

STATEMENT OF THE CASE1 1
Nora Femenia and Brenda Pomerance (Appellants) seek review under 2
35 U.S.C. § 134 (2002) of a final rejection of claims 21-83, the only claims 3
pending in the application on appeal. We have jurisdiction over the appeal 4
pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 6(b) (2002). 5
The Appellants invented a fully automated system and method for 6
facilitating negotiation of a conflict at least two parties (Specification 1:3-5). 7
An understanding of the invention can be derived from a reading of 8
exemplary claim 21, which is reproduced below [bracketed matter and some 9
paragraphing added]. 10
21. A method for resolving a dispute related to a preexisting 11
agreement, comprising: 12
[1] receiving 13
in a computerized system 14
a request 15
from an initiator 16
for dispute resolution 17
related to a preexisting agreement 18
between the initiator and a 19
respondent; 20

1 Our decision will make reference to the Appellants’ Appeal Brief (“App.
Br.,” filed January 22, 2007) and Reply Brief (“Reply Br.,” filed November
23, 2007), and the Examiner’s Answer (“Ans.,” mailed September 21,
2007).
Appeal 2010-004950
Application 11/004,699

3

and 1
[2] presenting 2
via the computerized system 3
information 4
related to the request for dispute resolution 5
to the respondent 6
in a cultural context 7
different from that of the initiator. 8
The Examiner relies upon the following prior art: 9
Tavor US 6,553,347 B1 Apr. 22, 2003
Claims 21-83 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 102(e) as anticipated by 10
Tavor. 11
ISSUES 12
The issues of anticipation turn primarily on whether Tavor describes a 13
pre-existing agreement or presenting information in a cultural context 14
different from that of the initiator. 15
FACTS PERTINENT TO THE ISSUES 16
The following enumerated Findings of Fact (FF) are believed to be 17
supported by a preponderance of the evidence. 18
Facts Related to the Prior Art - Tavor 19
01. Tavor is directed to for providing automatic negotiation 20
procedures for purchasing goods and services, including offering 21
price discounts and presents, and other inducements through an 22
electronic interface, without requiring human intervention. The 23
Appeal 2010-004950
Application 11/004,699

4

negotiation process is started and conducted using personal 1
criteria and behavior of each customer separately, such that the 2
negotiations do not involve an auction. According to preferred 3
embodiments of the present invention, the negotiation process 4
features natural language capabilities in order to impart the feeling 5
of negotiating with a human being. 6
02. Tavor conducts "one to one" commercial negotiations through an 7
electronic medium such as the Internet. The negotiation process 8
features one or more exchanges between the user and the system, 9
including discounts given by the system and responses to the price 10
offers of the user. Tavor offers the product for a specific price, a 11
price that may be optionally decreased as negotiation continues. 12
Tavor frequently asks how much the user is willing to pay for the 13
product, and based on the user's input, may accept the offer or, 14
after one or more unacceptable low inputs from the user, may 15
alternatively end the process of negotiation. Tavor negotiates on 16
many more parameters than simply the price itself. Tavor 4:20-17
41. 18
03. This input is preferably examined as a sequence of received price 19
offers. If the sequence reflects a series of increased offers, then 20
the user is interested in reaching an agreement. In that case, the 21
number of maximum interactions is increased by a predetermined 22
constant. If the sequence reflects a series of decreased offers, such 23
that each successive offer is lower than the preceding offer, then 24
the user is presumably not interested in reaching an agreement. In 25
this case, the negotiations are ended. If the user enters the same 26
Appeal 2010-004950
Application 11/004,699

5

offer each time, then reaching an agreement is unlikely. In this 1
case, only the previously determined maximum number of 2
interactions is performed. If the user enters different numbers 3
without any clear trend or relationship between these numbers, 4
presumably the user is not interested in reaching an agreement and 5
the process of negotiation is ended immediately. Tavor 12:13-28. 6
ANALYSIS 7
We are not persuaded by the Appellants’ argument that Tavor fails to 8
describe a pre-existing agreement or presenting information in a cultural 9
context different from that of the initiator. Appeal Br. 8-9. Neither of these 10
limitations is lexicographically defined in the Specification, nor are they 11
narrowed by the plain meaning of the claims. 12
The Examiner found that Tavor begins negotiations between parties with 13
a certain price. Ans. 3-4; FF 01-03. Thus, both parties have a pre-existing 14
agreement that this price is the starting point for negotiation. Nothing in the 15
claim narrows the agreement to a contractually binding set of conditions 16
fully approved and signed off by both parties, as Appellants’ arguments 17
suggest. As to a differing cultural context, the claim does not narrow the 18
manner in which such context differs, and different users will be in different 19
locations, and each location is a different presentation context whose cultural 20
attributes are those of that location. Also, Tavor’s explicit recitation of 21
entering decreasing prices would differ from a cultural context of increasing 22
prices. 23
Thus we affirm the Examiner based on the Examiner’s findings of fact. 24
Beyond this, we also find the two steps merely receive some request and 25
Appeal 2010-004950
Application 11/004,699

6

present information in response to that request. The contents of the request 1
and presented information are deserving of no patentable weight and cannot 2
distinguish the art over the invention. See In re Ngai, 367 F.3d 1336, 1339 3
(Fed. Cir. 2004). 4
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW 5
The rejection of claims 21-83 under 35 U.S.C. § 102(e) as anticipated by 6
Tavor is proper. 7
DECISION 8
The rejection of claims 21-83 is affirmed. 9
No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with this 10
appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a). See 37 C.F.R. 11
§ 1.136(a)(1)(iv) (2007). 12
13
AFFIRMED 14
15
16
17
MP 18