Patent 5758328

Obviousness

Combinations of prior art that suggest the claimed invention would have been obvious under 35 U.S.C. § 103.

Active provider: Google · gemini-2.5-flash

Obviousness

Combinations of prior art that suggest the claimed invention would have been obvious under 35 U.S.C. § 103.

✓ Generated

The provided "Prior Art" section within the patent document US5758328 details the inventor's understanding of the state of technology preceding the invention, rather than listing specific prior art references (e.g., other patents, scientific publications) that could be combined for an obviousness analysis under 35 U.S.C. § 103.

The "Prior Art" section describes general categories of existing computerized shopping systems, characterizing them as having a "central database of goods and services offered to buyers" where "information about the goods and services offered is stored centrally and must be kept current centrally". It notes limitations such as:

  • The "volume of information required to be maintained and updated in a central database system restricts it to a limited type or number of goods and services or number of vendors it can offer."
  • It is "not feasible for such systems to provide access to all standard goods and services and all suppliers world wide."
  • Existing systems are "very specialized electronic buying services with a limited selection of goods, services, and vendors."
  • Buyers wishing to sell surplus inventory cannot use these systems for that purpose.

The patent then contrasts the "present invention" with these perceived deficiencies, stating that it is "analagous to a cross between telephone and broadcasting technologies" and does not involve "No central database of goods, prices, etc.". Instead, it uses a system where buyer requests are broadcast to prospective sellers based on filter conditions.

Since the provided "Prior Art" section does not enumerate distinct prior art documents or technologies with specific disclosures (like a patent number, publication, or product description), it is not possible to perform an obviousness analysis by identifying combinations of these non-specific "references" and articulating a motivation to combine them in the manner required by 35 U.S.C. § 103. To conduct such an analysis, a list of specific, articulable prior art references would be necessary.

Generated 7/4/2026, 12:45:53 AM