Ex Parte Haller et al

Patent Trial and Appeal BoardNov 13, 2012

10950790 (P.T.A.B. Nov. 13, 2012)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE ____________ BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD ____________ Ex parte JOCHEN HALLER and PHILIP ROBINSON ____________ Appeal 2010-008768 Application 10/950,790 Technology Center 3600 ____________ Before MURRIEL E. CRAWFORD, JOSEPH A. FISCHETTI, and BIBHU R. MOHANTY, Administrative Patent Judges. MOHANTY, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL Appeal 2010-008768 Application 10/950,790 2 STATEMENT OF THE CASE The Appellants seek our review under 35 U.S.C. § 134 (2002) of the final rejection of claims 20, 23, 26, 28-29, 31-37, and 39-45 which are all the claims pending in the application. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b) (2002). SUMMARY OF THE DECISION We REVERSE. THE INVENTION The Appellants’ claimed invention is directed to a trust registry to provide information for trusted third parties (Spec. 1:14-19). Claim 20, reproduced below with the numbering in brackets added, is representative of the subject matter on appeal. 20. A computer-implemented method comprising: monitoring, at a trust service, a business capacity of a potential partner entity which is participating in an existing business collaboration, wherein the business capacity includes reliability, expertise, or availability characteristics associated with the potential partner entity; [1] receiving, at the trust service from a requesting entity, a trust determination request to perform a trust determination on the potential partner entity, the request identifying the potential partner entity and specifying requirements of a desired business collaboration between the requesting entity and the potential partner entity; [2] selecting, at the trust service, a trusted third party responsible for performing the trust determination based on a type of the desired business collaboration identified in the trust determination request; Appeal 2010-008768 Application 10/950,790 3 determining, at the trust service, using information received from the selected trusted third party, whether the potential partner entity satisfies the specified requirements based at least upon the monitored business capacity of the potential partner entity in the existing business collaboration; authorizing, at the trust service, the desired business collaboration if determining that the potential partner entity satisfies the specified requirements; and facilitating and monitoring communications relating to the authorized desired business collaboration between the requesting entity and the potential partner entity at the trust service. THE REJECTION The Examiner relies upon the following as evidence in support of the rejections: Eisenhart US 2001/0047276 A1 Nov. 29, 2001 Stowell US 2002/0099579 A1 Jul. 25, 2002 King US 2005/0091172 A1 Apr. 28, 2005 The following rejection is before us for review: 1. Claims 20, 23, 26, 28-29, 31-37, and 39-451 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Eisenhart, Stowell, and King. FINDINGS OF FACT We find the findings of fact in the Analysis section below are supported by at least a preponderance of the evidence2. 1 Claim 38 has been indicated as having been canceled (Br. 3). 2 See Ethicon, Inc. v. Quigg, 849 F.2d 1422, 1427 (Fed. Cir. 1988) (explaining the general evidentiary standard for proceedings before the Patent Office). Appeal 2010-008768 Application 10/950,790 4 ANALYSIS The Appellants argue that the rejection of claim 20 is improper because the cited prior art does not disclose claim limitation [1] (Br. 8-10, Reply Br. 2-3). In contrast, the Examiner has determined that Eisenhart discloses the cited claim limitation at paragraphs [0013]-[0014] (Ans. 4-5, 14-15). We agree with the Appellants. Claim limitation [1] requires: [1] receiving, at the trust service from a requesting entity, a trust determination request to perform a trust determination on the potential partner entity, the request identifying the potential partner entity and specifying requirements of a desired business collaboration between the requesting entity and the potential partner entity[.] (Emphasis added). Eisenhart at paragraphs [0013]-[0014] does not disclose a portion of claim limitation [1] and the rejection of record is therefore not sustained. While Eisenhart at paragraph [0014] does disclose that the system determines whether a potential business partner is a good match by comparing the member requirement from both the members perspective and the potential business partners perspective, it does not specifically disclose elements of claim limitation [1] requiring “receiving … a trust determination request to perform a trust determination on the potential partner entity.” (Emphasis added). Eisenhart at paragraph [0014] prioritizes the good matches and the list is evaluated by the member. Here, Eisenhart at paragraph [0014] does not specifically disclose the step of receiving a trust determination request to perform a trust determination of the potential party entity with the request identifying the potential partner but rather instead scans several potential business partners. For these reasons the rejection of Appeal 2010-008768 Application 10/950,790 5 claim 20 and its dependent claims is not sustained. Claims 31-32 contain a similar limitation and the rejection of these claims and their dependent claims is not sustained for these same reasons. CONCLUSIONS OF LAW We conclude that Appellants have shown that the Examiner erred in rejecting the claims listed in the Rejection section above. DECISION The Examiner’s rejection of claims 20, 23, 26, 28-29, 31-37, and 39- 45 is reversed. REVERSED hh