Ex Parte Sacco et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Nov 13, 2012

10912637 (P.T.A.B. Nov. 13, 2012)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
____________

BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
____________

Ex parte NATHAN SACCO, SONIA WONG, and ROBERT ERICKSON
___________

Appeal 2011-000018
Application 10/912,637
Technology Center 3600
____________

Before JOSEPH A. FISCHETTI, BIBHU R. MOHANTY, and
MEREDITH C. PETRAVICK, Administrative Patent Judges.

PETRAVICK, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL
Appeal 2011-000018
Application 10/912,637

2
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Nathan Sacco et al. (Appellants) seek our review under 35 U.S.C.
§ 134 of the final rejection of claims 1-39. We have jurisdiction under 35
U.S.C. § 6(b).

SUMMARY OF DECISION
We REVERSE. 1

THE INVENTION
This invention relates to “methods and system to automate the
creation of a listing for a network-based commerce system.” Spec. para.
[0002].
Claim 1, reproduced below, is illustrative of the subject matter on
appeal.
1. A method to automate the generation of a
listing for a network-based commerce system,
the method including:
creating a first profile and a second profile
by uploading listing data that includes a first
listing;
identifying user selection of the first profile
relating to a first aspect of the first listing;
identifying user selection of the second
profile relating to a second aspect of the first
listing;

1 Our decision will make reference to the Appellants’ Appeal Brief (“Br.,”
filed Apr. 29, 2010) and the Examiner’s Answer (“Ans.,” mailed Jul. 22,
2010).

Appeal 2011-000018
Application 10/912,637

3
storing the user selections of the first and
second profiles; and
automatically generating a second listing
utilizing the first and second profiles, the
generating done at least in part through the use
of one or more processors.

THE REJECTION
The Examiner relies upon the following as evidence of
unpatentability:
Bezos US 2003/0083961 A1 May 1, 2003

The following rejection is before us for review:
1. Claims 1-39 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. §102(e) as being
anticipated by Bezos.

ISSUES
The first issue is whether Bezos describes the steps of “creating a first
profile and a second profile by uploading listing data that includes a first
listing” and “automatically generating a second listing utilizing the first and
second profiles” as recited in claim 1.
The second issue is whether Bezos describes “a timing module to
automatically generate the listing based on a schedule” as recited in claim 7.
The third issue is whether Bezos describes s step of “generating at
least one report based on the plurality of defined characteristics, . . . the
reports . . including an average time to sell report” as recited in claim 24.
The fourth issue is whether Bezos describes “a bulk uploader to
automatically access a plurality of seller databases and automatically apply a
Appeal 2011-000018
Application 10/912,637

4
password access algorithm to gain access to the plurality of seller databases
to enable the reception of product information from the plurality of seller
databases” as recited in claim 34.

ANALYSIS
Claims 1-6
Claim 1 recites the steps of: “creating a first profile and a second
profile by uploading listing data that includes a first listing” and
“automatically generating a second listing utilizing the first and second
profiles.” We agree with the Appellants’ argument on pages 12-15 of the
Brief that Bezos’ paragraph [0018], cited by the Examiner (Ans. 10), fails to
anticipate this step. Accordingly, the rejection of claim 1, and claims 2-6,
dependent thereon, under 35 U.S.C. § 102(e) as being anticipated by Bezos
is reversed.

Claims 7- 23
Claim 7 recites a system that includes “a timing module to
automatically generate the listing based on a schedule.” We agree with the
Appellants’ argument (Br. 15-17) that Bezos’s paragraph [0088], cited by
the Examiner (Ans. 10) fails to anticipate the claimed timing module.
Accordingly, the rejection of claims 7, and claims 8-23, dependent thereon,
under 35 U.S.C. § 102(e) as being anticipated by Bezos is reversed.

Claims 24-33
Appeal 2011-000018
Application 10/912,637

5
Claim 24 recites a method that included a step of “generating at least
one report based on the plurality of defined characteristics, . . . the reports . .
including an average time to sell report.” Independent claim 29 recites a
similar step. We agree with the Appellants’ argument (Br. 17-19) that Bezos
does not anticipate the claimed step of generating at least one report, which
includes an average time to sell report. We note that the Examiner provides
no explanation as to how Bezos anticipates a step of generating an average
time to sell report. See Ans. 10-11. Accordingly, we find that the Examiner
has failed to establish a prima facie showing of anticipation, and the
rejection of claims 24 and 29, and claims 25-28 and 30-33, dependent
thereon, under 35 U.S.C. § 102(e) as being anticipated by Bezos is reversed.

Claims 34-39
Claim 34 recites an apparatus that includes “a bulk uploader to
automatically access a plurality of seller databases and automatically apply a
password access algorithm to gain access to the plurality of seller databases
to enable the reception of product information from the plurality of seller
databases.” We agree with the Appellants’ argument (Br. 19-22) that the
claimed bulk uploader is not anticipated by Bezos’s paragraph [0121], cited
by the Examiner (Ans. 11). Accordingly, the rejection of claim 34, and
claims 35-39, dependent thereon, under 35 U.S.C. § 102(e) as being
anticipated by Bezos is reversed.

DECISION
The decision of the Examiner to reject claims 1-39 is reversed.

Appeal 2011-000018
Application 10/912,637

6
REVERSED

mls