Ex Parte Neydavood

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Jul 30, 2014

11969892 (P.T.A.B. Jul. 30, 2014)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
____________

BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
____________

Ex parte BEN NEYDAVOOD
____________

Appeal 2012-001537
Application 11/969,892
Technology Center 3600
____________

Before MURRIEL E. CRAWFORD, BIBHU R. MOHANTY, and
BART A. GERSTENBLITH, Administrative Patent Judges.

CRAWFORD, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL

STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Appellant seeks our review under 35 U.S.C. § 134 of the Examiner’s
final decision rejecting claims 1–15 and 17–19. We have jurisdiction over
the appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We REVERSE.
Claim 1 is illustrative:
1. A computer program of executable instructions,
embodied on a computer readable storage medium, for a
customer to obtain price matching from a vendor in an
ecommerce transaction, the computer program comprising:
a code segment of the executable instructions that
presents a first browser screen to the customer offering a
Appeal 2012-001357
Application 11/969,892

2
product of the vendor, wherein said first browser screen
includes:
information about the product that further includes
an offer price; and
a price match request control for the customer to
selectively operate;
a code segment of the executable instructions that
presents a second browser screen responsive to operation of
said price match request control, wherein said second browser
screen includes:
a price match dialog form that further includes a
price entry control for the customer to enter counter price
data and a competitor entry control for the customer to
enter competing vendor data; and
a web site navigation control for the customer to
selectively operate;
a code segment of the executable instructions that,
responsive to said web site navigation control:
performs an analysis of said counter price data and
said competing vendor data to determine acceptability of
the ecommerce transaction; and
presents a third browser screen that includes an
unit price that displays said counter price data entered by
the customer if the vendor is accepting the ecommerce
transaction.

Appellant appeals the following rejection:
Claims 1–15 and 17–19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
unpatentable over Ojha (U.S. Patent No. 7,577,582 B1, issued Aug. 18,
2009) in view of Lokuge (U.S. Patent Application Publication No.
2006/0122917 A1, published June 8, 2006).

Appeal 2012-001357
Application 11/969,892

3
ISSUE
Does the Examiner err in rejecting the claims because Ojha does not
disclose a price match dialog form that includes a competitor entry control
for the customer to enter competing vendor data.

FACTUAL FINDINGS
Ojha discloses a method and apparatus for facilitating transactions in
which a buyer can buy products from a seller through a bid process (col. 5,
ll. 4–15). A seller or a buyer can bundle products together in an order
(col. 11, l. 5 to col. 12, l. 45). The seller and the buyer can go through
several rounds of negotiations on a price for the product which may include
negotiations of the taxes and shipping costs associated with the product
(col. 17, ll. 37). Several sellers and prices for one product can be presented
in a browser screen to a buyer (Figure 5). From this screen, a buyer can
select a seller and purchase the product (col. 8, ll. 31–32). The list of sellers
and their respective prices is generated by the system not input by the buyer.
Ojha does not disclose a price match dialog form that includes a competitor
entry control for the customer to enter competing vendor data.

ANALYSIS
The Appellant argues that Ojha does not disclose a price match dialog
form that includes a competitor entry control for the customer to enter
competing vendor data. We agree. As we found above, the screen that
displays competitive prices for products is generated by the system of Ojha
not by the buyer. As such, Ojha does not disclose a competitor entry control
for the customer to enter competing vendor data.
Appeal 2012-001357
Application 11/969,892

4
In view of the foregoing, we do not sustain the rejection of claim 1
and claims 2–6 dependent thereon. We also do not sustain the rejection as it
is directed to independent claims 7 and 12 and claims 8–11, 13–15, and
17–19 dependent thereon because claims 7 and 12 also require a competitor
entry control for the customer to enter competing vendor data.

DECISION
The Examiner’s decision rejecting claims 1–15 and 17–19 under
35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Ojha in view of Lokuge is reversed.

ORDER
REVERSED

llw