Ex Parte Melchior et al

Patent Trial and Appeal BoardNov 26, 2012

09981626 (P.T.A.B. Nov. 26, 2012)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE ____________ BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD ____________ Ex parte PETER MELCHIOR, JEFFREY ROHE, and HANS CRAVEN ___________ Appeal 2012-005101 Application 09/981,626 Technology Center 3600 ____________ Before MURRIEL E. CRAWFORD, JOSEPH A. FISCHETTI, and MEREDITH C. PETRAVICK, Administrative Patent Judges. PETRAVICK, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL Appeal 2012-005101 Application 09/981,626 2 STATEMENT OF THE CASE Peter Melchior et al. (Appellants) seek our review under 35 U.S.C. § 134 of the final rejection of claims 4, 8, 9, 11-13, 18, 24-36, and 39-43. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). SUMMARY OF DECISION We AFFIRM. 1 THE INVENTION This invention is an improved trade system, including allowing amendment of a purchase order agreement, providing buyer credit monitoring or facilitating providing buyer credit assurance, facilitating providing financing or advance payment for sellers, and providing cargo insurance. Spec. 6:16-19. Claim 4, reproduced below, is illustrative of the subject matter on appeal. 4. A computerized system for facilitating transactions in goods or services, the system comprising: [A] a microprocessor; and [B] a computer-readable storage medium including instructions for configuring the microprocessor to perform functions including: [C] electronic procurement of a purchase order agreement between a seller and a buyer and relating to a transaction in one or more goods or services, and for electronically storing the purchase order agreement; 1 Our decision will make reference to the Appellants’ Appeal Brief (“App. Br.,” filed Sep. 21, 2011) and the Examiner’s Answer (“Ans.,” mailed Nov. 22, 2011). Appeal 2012-005101 Application 09/981,626 3 [D] receiving a proposed modification to the purchase order agreement; [E] evaluating at least one of completeness and consistency of the proposed modification; [F] notifying at least one of the seller and buyer of results of the evaluation of the proposed modification; [G] notifying at least one of the seller and buyer of the proposed modification; [H] electronic modification of the purchase order agreement upon agreement by the seller and the buyer to the proposed modification; [I] receiving and storing electronic evidence that the seller has performed in connection with fulfilling the seller's obligations as defined by the purchase order agreement as modified by any modifications; [J] electronically evaluating whether the seller has complied with the seller's obligations as defined by the purchase order agreement as modified by any modifications; [K] electronically providing a payment instruction if the seller has been evaluated to have complied with the seller's obligations as defined by the purchase order agreement as modified by any modifications; and [L] receiving and storing electronic evidence that the buyer has made one or more payments in connection with fulfilling buyer's obligations as defined by the purchase order agreement as modified by any modifications, [M] wherein the electronic modification of the purchase order agreement comprises electronic negotiation between the seller and the buyer relating to the modification; [N] the system is configured to recognize different seller agent users have different rights with regard to electronically proposing modifications to the purchase order agreement and electronically accepting proposed modifications to the purchase order agreement; [O] the system is configured to recognize different buyer agent users have different rights with regard to electronically proposing modifications to the purchase order agreement and electronically accepting proposed modifications to the purchase order agreement; and Appeal 2012-005101 Application 09/981,626 4 [P] the system is configured so that the proposed modifications to the purchase order agreement, and the accepting proposed modifications to the purchase order agreement, are allowed by the microprocessor based on the respective buyer and seller agents' rights. THE REJECTION The Examiner relies upon the following as evidence of unpatentability: Barnes US 5,970,475 Oct. 19, 1999 Conklin US 6,141,653 Oct. 31, 2000 Cornelius US 7,069,234 B1 Jun. 27, 2006 The following rejection is before us for review: 1. Claims 4, 8, 9, 11-13, 18, 24-36, and 39-43 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. §103(a) as being unpatentable over Conklin, Cornelius, and Barnes. ISSUE The issue is whether Conklin, Cornelius, and Barnes render claims 4, 8, 9, 11-13, 18, 24-36, and 39-43 unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. §103(a). Specifically, do the references teach recognizing different seller agent users and different buyer agent users, both of which have different rights to electronically proposing modifications. Appeal 2012-005101 Application 09/981,626 5 ANALYSIS The rejection of claims 4, 8, 9, 11-13, 18, 24-36, and 39-43 under §103(a) as being unpatentable over Conklin, Cornelius, and Barnes. Claim 4 The Appellants argue claims 4, 8, 9, 11-13, 18, 24-36, and 39-43 as a group. See App. Br. 8-11. We select claim 4 as the representative claim for this group, and the remaining claims 8, 9, 11-13, 18, 24-36, and 39-43 stand or fall with claim 4. 37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(1)(vii). The Appellants argue that the references do not teach limitations N, O, and P because Cornelius is directed to programmers during a development phase of a system versus end users of the final system. See App. Br. 8-11. We find the Appellants’ argument unpersuasive because it is not commensurate with the scope of the claim. Limitations N, O, and P recite different seller agent users and different buyer agent users having different rights to electronically propose modifications to a purchase order agreement, and the system allowing these modifications. Contrary to what the Appellants argue (see App. Br. 8-9), the claim limitations do not require that the seller agent users and buyer agent users are the “end users” of the final system. Instead, this is the first introduction (N, O, and P, supra) of seller agent users and buyer agent users in the claim such that neither necessarily refers to the seller or buyer previously recited. When given the broadest reasonable interpretation in light of the Specification, these limitations encompass assigning different access rights to different groups of users (i.e. seller agent users and buyer agent users), as the Examiner found. See Ans. 9-10. Therefore, we are not persuaded that the Examiner erred. Appeal 2012-005101 Application 09/981,626 6 Accordingly, the rejection of claims 4, 8, 9, 11-13, 18, 24-36, and 39- 43 under §103 as being obvious over Conklin, Cornelius, and Barnes is affirmed. DECISION The decision of the Examiner to reject claims 4, 8, 9, 11-13, 18, 24- 36, and 39-43 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)(1)(iv). AFFIRMED Klh