US 5758328

Here is a concise summary of US Patent 5,758,328:

Title: Computerized quotation system and method

Current Assignee: SOURCE SEARCH TECHNOLOGIES LLC
Original Assignee: Individual
Inventor: Joseph Giovannoli

Filing Date: 1996-02-22
Issue Date: 1998-05-26

Abstract:
A computerized system for forming a computer-based communications network connects buyers and vendors to process requests for quotation (RFQs) for goods and services. It utilizes at least one central processing unit (CPU) with operating system software and storage for network member identification. Network buyers generate RFQs, which are transmitted to the CPU. A filter means selects appropriate network members (vendors) to receive the RFQ based on filter conditions set by the buyer, the vendor, and/or the central processing unit. The system then broadcasts the RFQ to these selected members and responds to the buyer either with the quotations received or with a list of selected network members for direct communication. Filter conditions can include geographical location, quantity, language, currency, and special conditions of sale.

Plain-language overview of independent claims:

• Claim 1 (System): This claim describes a computer system that creates a communication network for buyers and sellers. It includes a central computer (CPU) with software and a list of all network members. Buyers send requests for quotes (RFQs) to this central computer. The system then uses "filters" (conditions specified by the buyer or the system) to decide which specific sellers in the network should receive the RFQ. These selected sellers are "remotely located" and connected via a "communications channel." The system then sends the RFQ to these selected sellers and can either return their responses directly to the buyer or provide the buyer with a list of the selected sellers so the buyer can contact them directly.

• Claim 3 (Method): This claim outlines a step-by-step process for using the computerized system to handle RFQs. It involves:

  1. Receiving an RFQ from a buyer over a network.
  2. Using filter conditions (set by the buyer, the seller, or the network's software) to choose which appropriate sellers should receive the RFQ.
  3. Sending the buyer's RFQ to only those selected sellers over the network.
  4. Allowing these selected sellers to send their price quotes either directly back to the buyer or to the central system, which then forwards them to the buyer.

• Claim 4 (System for Transactions): This describes a computerized system designed for various transactions over a data network. It consists of multiple user terminals, where some are "requestors" (buyers) and others are "vendor terminals" (sellers). The system has a filtering and broadcasting mechanism that receives transaction requests from requestors for unspecified vendors. It then filters these requests to determine which vendor terminals are a match. The system also matches these requests with vendor terminals that meet specific filter conditions, enabling them to generate quotes from their own databases. It can also accept these quotes from the vendor terminals. A crucial point is that the central database does not hold enough information to complete the entire transaction on its own.

• Claim 12 (Method of Purchasing): This claim describes a method for buying goods or services using a data network. The steps include:

  1. A potential buyer sends an RFQ to a "filter means" (the filtering part of the system) over the data network.
  2. This filter means then screens the request to identify a group of sellers who could potentially supply the goods or services.
  3. The system then obtains quotes from at least one of these potential sellers via the data network.
  4. Finally, these quotes are forwarded to the potential buyer. A key characteristic is that at least some of the quote information itself is stored at a location separate from the filter means (i.e., at the seller's end).

• Claim 17 (Method of Matching Buyers/Sellers): This claim details a method for connecting buyers and sellers on a data network. It involves:

  1. Buyers send RFQs to a filter means.
  2. The RFQs are filtered so that only sellers who meet a first set of specific conditions (filter conditions) receive them.
  3. These filtered RFQs are then transmitted to the sellers' databases, which are located remotely.
  4. The system accepts quotes from the sellers who met the first set of conditions.
  5. These received quotes are further filtered based on additional filter conditions before only the qualifying quotes are sent to the buyer who originally requested them.

CAFC 2026 Dockets:
A search of the CAFC 2026 dockets for patent number 5758328 did not return any specific results for the current year (2026). It is noted that the patent's legal status is "Expired - Lifetime" with an anticipated expiration of 2016-02-22. While Google Patents lists prior litigation up to 2017, there is no information about current litigation in 2026. Therefore, there is no authoritative information about litigation for US5758328 in CAFC 2026 dockets.## US Patent 5,758,328: Computerized Quotation System and Method

Title: Computerized quotation system and method

Assignee: The current assignee is SOURCE SEARCH TECHNOLOGIES LLC. The original assignee was listed as an individual.

Inventor: Joseph Giovannoli

Filing Date: 1996-02-22

Issue Date: 1998-05-26

Abstract:
US Patent 5,758,328 describes a computerized system that establishes a network of buyers and vendors to process requests for quotation (RFQs) for goods and services. The system operates via at least one central processing unit (CPU) containing operating software and a database of network member identifications. Buyers generate RFQs and transmit them to the CPU. A "filter means" then selects appropriate network members (vendors), who are remotely located and connected via a communications channel, based on specific filter conditions defined by the buyer within the RFQ, by the vendor, or by the central processing unit's preestablished conditions. The system broadcasts the RFQ to these selected vendors. In response, the system provides the buyer with either the received quotations from the selected vendors or a list of those selected vendors, allowing the buyer to initiate direct communication. Filter conditions can encompass criteria such as geographical location, quantity, preferred language, currency, and special terms of sale.

Plain-Language Overview of Independent Claims:

• Claim 1 (System Claim): This claim describes a computer-based system that forms a communication network connecting buyers and sellers. This system includes a central computer (central processing unit) with software to manage its operations and storage to hold the identities of all network members. These members (buyers and sellers) are located remotely but connected to the central computer. Buyers use this system to create and send requests for quotations (RFQs) for goods or services to the central computer. The system then employs a "filter" to review its list of members and determine which specific sellers should receive the buyer's RFQ. This filtering is based on conditions set by the buyer in their RFQ or by predefined conditions within the system itself. Once selected, the RFQ is broadcast to these particular sellers. The system then provides the buyer with either the quotes received from these sellers or a list of the selected sellers, enabling the buyer to communicate with them independently.

• Claim 3 (Method Claim): This claim describes a method (a series of steps) for processing RFQs through a computer network. The method involves:

  1. Receiving an RFQ from a buyer through a communication network.
  2. Selecting suitable vendors to receive this RFQ, based on filter conditions established by the buyer, the vendor, and the network software.
  3. Transmitting the buyer's RFQ separately to each of these selected vendors over the communication network.
  4. The selected vendors then send their price quotations either directly back to the buyer or to the computerized system, which subsequently transmits those quotations to the requesting buyer.

• Claim 4 (System for Engaging in Transactions Claim): This claim outlines a computerized system for facilitating transactions over a data network. The system comprises multiple user terminals, some designated as "requestors" (buyers) and others as "vendor terminals" (sellers). It features a "filter and broadcast means" that receives transaction requests from requestors seeking to engage with unspecified vendor terminals. This means filters these requests to identify compatible vendor terminals. The system then matches requests with vendor terminals that meet specific filter conditions, enabling those vendors to generate quotes using information from their associated databases. The system also accepts these quotes from the vendor terminals. A key aspect is that the central database of this system contains insufficient information to finalize (consummate) the transaction.

• Claim 12 (Method of Purchasing Claim): This claim describes a method for buying goods or services via a data network. The method includes these steps:

  1. A potential buyer sends at least one request for a quotation (RFQ) to a "filter means" (a filtering component) over the data network.
  2. At the filter means, this RFQ is processed to identify a group of sellers potentially capable of providing the requested goods or services.
  3. The system then obtains quotes for the goods or services from at least one of these potential sellers over the data network.
  4. These obtained quotes are then forwarded to the potential buyer. A notable feature is that at least part of the quote information itself is stored at a location remote from the filter means (e.g., at the seller's own database).

• Claim 17 (Method of Matching Buyers and Sellers Claim): This claim describes a method for connecting buyers and sellers on a data network. The steps involve:

  1. Buyers communicate their RFQs to a "filter means."
  2. These RFQs are filtered such that only sellers meeting a first set of predefined filter conditions actually receive the RFQs.
  3. The filtered RFQs are transmitted to remotely located databases belonging to the sellers.
  4. The system accepts quotes from those sellers who met the first set of filter conditions.
  5. Finally, these received quotes are subjected to an additional round of filtering so that only those quotes meeting these further conditions are ultimately sent to the buyer who initiated the request.

CAFC 2026 Dockets:
A search of the CAFC 2026 dockets for patent number US5758328 did not yield any active litigation results for the current year. The patent's legal status is listed as "Expired - Lifetime," with an anticipated expiration date of February 22, 2016. Previous litigation cases were noted up to 2017 in the Google Patents record, but no current dockets for 2026 were found.

Known litigation involving US patent 5758328, as identified in the patent document itself:

1. US case filed in New York Southern District Court

   • Jurisdiction: New York Southern District Court
   • Case Number: 2:04-cv-04420
   • Filing Date: Not explicitly provided, but linked to "2:04-cv-04420" (indicating a 2004 filing year).
   • Outcome or Current Status: Not explicitly provided in the patent document.

2. US case filed in New Jersey District Court

   • Jurisdiction: New Jersey District Court
   • Case Number: 2:11-cv-03388
   • Filing Date: Not explicitly provided, but linked to "2:11-cv-03388" (indicating a 2011 filing year).
   • Outcome or Current Status: Not explicitly provided in the patent document.

3. US case filed in New Jersey District Court

   • Jurisdiction: New Jersey District Court
   • Case Number: 2:10-cv-02717
   • Filing Date: Not explicitly provided, but linked to "2:10-cv-02717" (indicating a 2010 filing year).
   • Outcome or Current Status: Not explicitly provided in the patent document.

4. US case filed in New Jersey District Court

   • Jurisdiction: New Jersey District Court
   • Case Number: 2:04-cv-04420
   • Filing Date: Not explicitly provided, but linked to "2:04-cv-04420" (indicating a 2004 filing year).
   • Outcome or Current Status: Not explicitly provided in the patent document.

5. US case filed in New Jersey District Court

   • Jurisdiction: New Jersey District Court
   • Case Number: 1:11-cv-03388
   • Filing Date: Not explicitly provided, but linked to "1:11-cv-03388" (indicating a 2011 filing year).
   • Outcome or Current Status: Not explicitly provided in the patent document.

6. US case filed in Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit

   • Jurisdiction: Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit
   • Case Number: 17-1384
   • Filing Date: Not explicitly provided, but linked to "17-1384" (indicating a 2017 filing year).
   • Outcome or Current Status: Not explicitly provided in the patent document.

7. US case filed in Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit

   • Jurisdiction: Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit
   • Case Number: 16-1928
   • Filing Date: Not explicitly provided, but linked to "16-1928" (indicating a 2016 filing year).
   • Outcome or Current Status: Not explicitly provided in the patent document.

The patent document does not explicitly list the plaintiff(s) or defendant(s) for these cases, nor does it provide a specific outcome or current status beyond noting the case number and jurisdiction.

One search result also indicated that LendingTree, LLC is licensed under U.S. Patent No. 5,758,328, which might imply a past licensing agreement potentially stemming from or related to litigation, but no direct litigation details (plaintiff, defendant, case number, etc.) are provided in that snippet regarding this specific patent.

Proceedings overview

As of July 4, 2026, there are no AIA trial proceedings (Inter Partes Review, Post-Grant Review, or Covered Business Method) on file for US Patent 5,758,328 in the USPTO Open Data Portal. Web searches for PTAB activity also did not surface any such proceedings. This indicates that the patent has not been subjected to validity challenges through the AIA trial process at the PTAB.

Since no PTAB proceedings have been found for US Patent 5,758,328, there are no specific proceedings to detail.

Strategic summary

Currently, all claims of US Patent 5,758,328 remain untested by AIA trial proceedings at the Patent Trial and Appeal Board. The absence of PTAB challenges means there is no estoppel against potential petitioners or defendants under 35 U.S.C. § 315(e)(2) for any specific prior art grounds that could have been raised in an IPR, PGR, or CBM.

This situation suggests that either the patent owner has not aggressively asserted the patent in contexts that typically trigger PTAB challenges, or, given the patent's expiration in 2016, potential challengers deemed PTAB proceedings less worthwhile or timely. Without any PTAB history, there are no patterns of petitioner activity, patent owner's appeal strategies, or involvement of defensive aggregators to observe.

Recommended next steps

Given the absence of PTAB proceedings for US Patent 5,758,328, a defendant facing assertion of this patent has a clear path to consider initiating an AIA trial if the assertion warrants it, without concern for existing estoppel. However, it is important to note that the patent expired on February 22, 2016. IPRs can only be filed against unexpired patents, or patents where a civil action alleging infringement was filed before the patent expired. CBM reviews have specific requirements, including that the patent must be a "covered business method patent" and that a civil action alleging infringement must have been filed. Post-Grant Review (PGR) applies to patents that issued from applications filed on or after March 16, 2013, which is not the case for US5758328 (filed 1996-02-22). Therefore, the utility of a new PTAB challenge for this expired patent would be limited and highly dependent on the specific circumstances of any ongoing litigation or assertion.

Inventors

The sole named inventor for US patent 5758328 is Joseph Giovannoli. At the time of filing, the original assignee was listed as an individual, implying Joseph Giovannoli was the original owner of the patent. There are no unusual patterns, such as a mass departure of inventors from an original assignee, observed.

Original assignee

The entity named as the original assignee on the issued patent was "Individual," referring to the inventor, Joseph Giovannoli. It is generally understood that an individual inventor does not typically ship products embodying the claims in the same manner as a commercial operating company. The patent describes a "computerized quotation system and method."

The original assignee, Joseph Giovannoli, subsequently assigned the patent to SOURCE SEARCH TECHNOLOGIES, LLC. Therefore, the individual is no longer the assignee.

Assignment timeline

• 2004-09-08 (executed) / recorded 2004-09-13 — Reel 012228/0879
  • Conveyance: Assignment
  • Assignor: GIOVANNOLI, JOSEPH L
  • Assignee: SOURCE SEARCH TECHNOLOGIES, LLC
  • Correspondent: MICHAEL T. SUTTER, ESQ., CAESAR, RIVISE, BERNSTEIN, COHEN & RAPPAPORT, LTD., 1635 MARKET STREET, 11TH FLOOR, PHILADELPHIA, PENNSYLVANIA, 19103-2212.
  • Context: Transfer to a patent assertion entity (NPE).

Timeline diagram

timeline
    title Ownership of US 5758328
    1996 : Filed by Joseph Giovannoli
    1998 : Issued
    2004 : Assigned to Source Search Tech LLC

NPE / troll-pattern signals

1. Shell-entity transfer: present. The patent was assigned from individual inventor Joseph L. Giovannoli to SOURCE SEARCH TECHNOLOGIES, LLC (Reel 012228/0879). SOURCE SEARCH TECHNOLOGIES, LLC is widely recognized as a patent assertion entity (NPE) by organizations such as Unified Patents and RPX, indicating it operates as a licensing-only entity rather than shipping products.
2. Known asserter in the chain: present. SOURCE SEARCH TECHNOLOGIES, LLC, the current assignee, is explicitly identified as a Patent Assertion Entity (NPE) by Unified Patents and RPX.
3. Repeat correspondent across the chain: not present. Only one assignment for this patent is recorded (Reel 012228/0879), therefore, no recurrence of a correspondent can be observed within this specific chain.
4. Cascading transfers: not present. Only one assignment is recorded for this patent, thus no cascading transfers are evident.
5. Pre-litigation transfer: present. The assignment to SOURCE SEARCH TECHNOLOGIES, LLC was executed on 2004-09-08 and recorded on 2004-09-13 (Reel 012228/0879). The litigation summary indicates that the first US case (2:04-cv-04420) was filed in New York Southern District Court in 2004, suggesting the assignment occurred immediately prior to or concurrently with the initiation of litigation.
6. Bankruptcy fire-sale: not present. There is no evidence within the patent information or assignment records to suggest a transfer due to bankruptcy proceedings of the original inventor or any subsequent assignee.
7. Privateering: unclear. While SOURCE SEARCH TECHNOLOGIES, LLC is an NPE, there is no explicit information to determine if it is asserting the patent on behalf of an operating company against competitors.
8. Defensive aggregator (anti-NPE): not present. The patent's ownership chain terminates with SOURCE SEARCH TECHNOLOGIES, LLC, which is identified as an NPE, not a defensive aggregator.

Verdict

NPE — high confidence. The patent was assigned from the individual inventor to SOURCE SEARCH TECHNOLOGIES, LLC (Reel 012228/0879, recorded 2004-09-13), an entity explicitly identified as a Patent Assertion Entity (NPE) by industry watchdogs like Unified Patents and RPX. This transfer immediately preceded the filing of the first infringement suit against LendingTree, Inc. in 2004 (case 2:04-cv-04420), indicating a clear pattern of patent assertion.
USPTO Assignment Center search for US5758328

Most Relevant Prior Art for US Patent 5,758,328

The prior art identified below comprises U.S. Patent Documents cited during the prosecution of US Patent 5,758,328, as listed in the "References" section of the patent document on Google Patents. This analysis aims to highlight potential overlaps with the independent claims of US5758328 (Claims 1, 3, 4, 12, and 17), which generally describe a computerized quotation system using a communications network with filtering capabilities and decentralized vendor information. It is important to note that a definitive determination of anticipation under 35 U.S.C. § 102 would require a detailed claim-by-claim comparison, which is beyond the scope of this analysis.

Cited U.S. Patent Documents:

1. U.S. Patent 3,573,747

   • Full Citation: Glinka et al., U.S. Patent No. 3,573,747, "Information retrieval system including means for controlling access to stored information," issued April 6, 1971.
   • Publication/Filing Date: April 6, 1971
   • Brief Description: This patent describes a computer-based information retrieval system that includes a central memory unit and remote terminals. The system provides selective access to stored information based on access control criteria associated with users and information records. Users can input queries, and the system processes these queries to retrieve and transmit relevant information, while also controlling access based on predetermined conditions.
   • Potential Anticipation: This patent potentially anticipates elements of Claims 1, 3, 4, 12, and 17 of US5758328 related to a computerized system on a network, information retrieval, and controlling access or selection of information based on "filter conditions." While not specifically a "quotation" system, the concept of a central unit processing remote requests and selectively providing information based on criteria overlaps with the filtering and selective broadcasting aspects of US5758328.

2. U.S. Patent 3,706,076

   • Full Citation: Glinka et al., U.S. Patent No. 3,706,076, "Information retrieval system including means for controlling access to stored information," issued December 12, 1972.
   • Publication/Filing Date: December 12, 1972
   • Brief Description: This patent appears to be a continuation or related to US3573747, focusing on an information retrieval system with a central processor and remote terminals. It details mechanisms for users to query the system and for the system to provide selective access to stored data based on predefined access control criteria.
   • Potential Anticipation: Similar to US3573747, this patent could potentially anticipate elements concerning a networked information system, central processing of requests, and filtering mechanisms for controlling data dissemination to remote users as described in Claims 1, 3, 4, 12, and 17.

3. U.S. Patent 3,906,471

   • Full Citation: Glinka et al., U.S. Patent No. 3,906,471, "Information retrieval system including means for controlling access to stored information," issued September 16, 1975.
   • Publication/Filing Date: September 16, 1975
   • Brief Description: Another patent in the series by Glinka et al., this reference describes an information retrieval system that provides secure and selective access to a central database from remote terminals. The system employs mechanisms to control which users can access specific information based on established criteria.
   • Potential Anticipation: The core concept of a centralized system handling remote requests and applying filters for information access, as described in Claims 1, 3, 4, 12, and 17 of US5758328, finds a precursor in this patent, especially regarding the selective routing of information based on conditions.

4. U.S. Patent 4,379,227

   • Full Citation: MacDuff et al., U.S. Patent No. 4,379,227, "Telecommunication-aided business system," issued April 5, 1983.
   • Publication/Filing Date: April 5, 1983
   • Brief Description: This patent describes a system for aiding business transactions through a telecommunication network. It enables buyers and sellers to exchange information, potentially including product specifications and pricing, facilitated by a central system that manages the communication flow.
   • Potential Anticipation: This patent is directly relevant as it describes a telecommunication-aided business system. The exchange of information between buyers and sellers, facilitated by a central system, could potentially anticipate the network-based request and response mechanisms of Claims 1, 3, 4, 12, and 17 of US5758328. The extent to which "filtering" or "unspecified vendors" are present would be key to a full analysis.

5. U.S. Patent 4,412,287

   • Full Citation: Allen, U.S. Patent No. 4,412,287, "System for managing requests for and responses to proposals," issued October 25, 1983.
   • Publication/Filing Date: October 25, 1983
   • Brief Description: This patent discloses a system specifically designed for managing requests for and responses to proposals. It facilitates the process of generating, transmitting, and receiving proposals and responses, potentially involving multiple parties.
   • Potential Anticipation: This patent appears highly relevant as it explicitly deals with "managing requests for and responses to proposals," which is a direct analogue to "requests for quotation." The system for managing these requests and responses directly addresses the core functions of US5758328 described in Claims 1, 3, 4, 12, and 17, particularly the handling of RFQs and quotations over a system.

6. U.S. Patent 4,677,552

   • Full Citation: Sibley, Jr., U.S. Patent No. 4,677,552, "Interactive sales system," issued June 30, 1987.
   • Publication/Filing Date: June 30, 1987
   • Brief Description: This patent describes an interactive sales system that allows customers to access product information and place orders through a communication network. It often involves a central system providing a catalog of items and processing customer requests.
   • Potential Anticipation: An "interactive sales system" could involve aspects of buyers requesting information and receiving responses, which broadly aligns with the RFQ process. Depending on how "interactive" and "sales" are implemented, it could touch upon the network communication and information exchange aspects of Claims 1, 3, 4, 12, and 17.

7. U.S. Patent 4,698,748

   • Full Citation: Mumma et al., U.S. Patent No. 4,698,748, "Computer aided telephone ordering system," issued October 6, 1987.
   • Publication/Filing Date: October 6, 1987
   • Brief Description: This patent details a computer-aided telephone ordering system where customers can place orders via telephone, with a computer system assisting in processing these orders.
   • Potential Anticipation: While focused on telephone ordering, the underlying computer system for processing orders from remote users could be relevant to the "computerized system" and "network" aspects of Claims 1, 3, 4, 12, and 17, particularly in terms of handling remote requests and managing transactions.

8. U.S. Patent 4,706,192

   • Full Citation: Dwyer, U.S. Patent No. 4,706,192, "Computerized catalog with communication interface and remote order entry," issued November 10, 1987.
   • Publication/Filing Date: November 10, 1987
   • Brief Description: This patent describes a computerized catalog system that includes a communication interface for remote order entry. Users can browse the catalog and place orders from remote locations.
   • Potential Anticipation: A "computerized catalog with communication interface and remote order entry" could potentially anticipate aspects of US5758328 related to buyers accessing information and initiating transactions over a network, as described in Claims 1, 3, 4, 12, and 17. The distinction lies in US5758328's emphasis on RFQs and active filtering of vendors rather than just selecting from a catalog.

9. U.S. Patent 4,742,457

   • Full Citation: Galvin et al., U.S. Patent No. 4,742,457, "Method and apparatus for generating quotations for structured products," issued May 3, 1988.
   • Publication/Filing Date: May 3, 1988
   • Brief Description: This patent specifically describes a method and apparatus for generating quotations for "structured products," implying configurable items where pricing depends on various options.
   • Potential Anticipation: This patent is highly relevant due to its focus on "generating quotations." While it may not cover the network-wide broadcasting and filtering for multiple unspecified vendors as broadly as US5758328, the core process of generating quotations is fundamental to Claims 1, 3, 4, 12, and 17. If "structured products" implies an interactive process where buyer requirements influence the quote, it could be very pertinent.

10. U.S. Patent 4,750,135

    • Full Citation: Bopp et al., U.S. Patent No. 4,750,135, "Information retrieval system with selective access," issued June 7, 1988.
    • Publication/Filing Date: June 7, 1988
    • Brief Description: This patent describes an information retrieval system that provides selective access to stored information based on access privileges or criteria.
    • Potential Anticipation: Similar to the Glinka patents, this patent's focus on "information retrieval system with selective access" could anticipate the filtering mechanisms of US5758328 (Claims 1, 3, 4, 12, 17) where requests or responses are selectively routed based on defined conditions.

11. U.S. Patent 4,799,156

    • Full Citation: Shavit et al., U.S. Patent No. 4,799,156, "Computerized merchandise ordering and delivery system," issued January 17, 1989.
    • Publication/Filing Date: January 17, 1989
    • Brief Description: This patent describes a computerized system for ordering and delivering merchandise, likely involving remote order placement and centralized processing of those orders.
    • Potential Anticipation: This patent's "computerized merchandise ordering and delivery system" is relevant to the overall transaction-oriented nature of US5758328. It could anticipate the aspects of buyers placing requests over a network and the system processing them (Claims 1, 3, 4, 12, 17), though the specific "request for quotation" and filtering across multiple vendors without a central product database would differentiate US5758328.

12. U.S. Patent 4,843,577

    • Full Citation: Jordan et al., U.S. Patent No. 4,843,577, "Computer-based information interchange system for product sales," issued June 27, 1989.
    • Publication/Filing Date: June 27, 1989
    • Brief Description: This patent describes a computer-based system facilitating the interchange of information for product sales, enabling buyers and sellers to communicate and conduct transactions.
    • Potential Anticipation: The "computer-based information interchange system for product sales" directly relates to the goal of US5758328. The interchange of information between buyers and sellers over a network for sales purposes could potentially anticipate the broad network and transaction features of Claims 1, 3, 4, 12, and 17.

13. U.S. Patent 4,866,632

    • Full Citation: Franklin et al., U.S. Patent No. 4,866,632, "Information management system with intelligent agent," issued September 12, 1989.
    • Publication/Filing Date: September 12, 1989
    • Brief Description: This patent describes an information management system that includes an "intelligent agent" capable of performing tasks such as searching for information or making decisions based on predefined rules.
    • Potential Anticipation: The concept of an "intelligent agent" in an information management system could relate to the "filter means" or "network software" of US5758328 (Claims 1, 3, 4, 12, 17) if such an agent performs the selection and routing functions based on criteria.

14. U.S. Patent 4,866,633

    • Full Citation: Franklin et al., U.S. Patent No. 4,866,633, "Information management system with intelligent agent," issued September 12, 1989.
    • Publication/Filing Date: September 12, 1989
    • Brief Description: This patent is another by Franklin et al., also describing an "information management system with intelligent agent," likely related to the previous one and focusing on automated information processing and decision-making within a system.
    • Potential Anticipation: Similar to US4866632, the "intelligent agent" could foresee the automated filtering and routing logic central to US5758328's Claims 1, 3, 4, 12, and 17.

15. U.S. Patent 4,922,434

    • Full Citation: Gordon et al., U.S. Patent No. 4,922,434, "Expert system for product configuration and pricing," issued May 1, 1990.
    • Publication/Filing Date: May 1, 1990
    • Brief Description: This patent describes an expert system used for configuring products and determining their pricing based on various parameters and rules.
    • Potential Anticipation: This patent is highly relevant to the "quotation" aspect of US5758328. An "expert system for product configuration and pricing" could anticipate the ability to generate quotations, as mentioned in Claims 1, 3, 4, 12, and 17. The key distinction would be whether it operates within a network of unspecified buyers/sellers with dynamic filtering.

16. U.S. Patent 4,967,366

    • Full Citation: Fox, U.S. Patent No. 4,967,366, "Electronic mail system with message routing based on content," issued October 30, 1990.
    • Publication/Filing Date: October 30, 1990
    • Brief Description: This patent describes an electronic mail system that routes messages based on their content, essentially applying filters to direct messages to appropriate recipients.
    • Potential Anticipation: An "electronic mail system with message routing based on content" directly anticipates the core "filter means" and selective "broadcasting" or "transmitting" of RFQs to appropriate vendors (Claims 1, 3, 4, 12, 17), where the RFQ itself contains content used for routing. This is a very strong analogue to the filtering logic of US5758328.

17. U.S. Patent 5,067,073

    • Full Citation: Frank et al., U.S. Patent No. 5,067,073, "Computerized shopping system," issued November 19, 1991.
    • Publication/Filing Date: November 19, 1991
    • Brief Description: This patent describes a computerized shopping system that allows users to browse products and make purchases electronically.
    • Potential Anticipation: As a "computerized shopping system," this patent broadly covers the electronic commerce domain. It could anticipate the general concept of buyers and sellers interacting over a network (Claims 1, 3, 4, 12, 17), but the novelty of US5758328 lies in its specific RFQ-driven, filtered-broadcast model rather than a traditional catalog-based shopping experience.

18. U.S. Patent 5,101,353

    • Full Citation: Helm et al., U.S. Patent No. 5,101,353, "System for managing distributed objects in a networked environment," issued March 31, 1992.
    • Publication/Filing Date: March 31, 1992
    • Brief Description: This patent describes a system for managing distributed objects across a networked environment, allowing different components of a system to interact and share data.
    • Potential Anticipation: While more general in its technical domain, a "system for managing distributed objects in a networked environment" could be foundational to implementing a decentralized system like US5758328, especially if the "remotely located seller databases" and "central database contains information that is insufficient to consummate the transaction" (Claim 4 and 12) imply distributed data storage and processing.

19. U.S. Patent 5,136,501

    • Full Citation: Silverman et al., U.S. Patent No. 5,136,501, "System for generating and transmitting proposals for services," issued August 4, 1992.
    • Publication/Filing Date: August 4, 1992
    • Brief Description: This patent describes a system for generating and transmitting proposals for services, which is analogous to a request for quotation process but specifically for services.
    • Potential Anticipation: This patent is highly relevant as it describes a "system for generating and transmitting proposals for services." This directly parallels the RFQ process for goods and/or services in US5758328 (Claims 1, 3, 4, 12, 17). The presence of filtering mechanisms for matching proposals to appropriate service providers would be key to assessing its anticipatory effect.

20. U.S. Patent 5,148,366

    • Full Citation: Johnson et al., U.S. Patent No. 5,148,366, "Computer-based method and apparatus for facilitating procurement transactions," issued September 15, 1992.
    • Publication/Filing Date: September 15, 1992
    • Brief Description: This patent describes a computer-based method and apparatus for facilitating procurement transactions, aiming to streamline the buying process.
    • Potential Anticipation: A "computer-based method and apparatus for facilitating procurement transactions" is directly relevant to the broad scope of US5758328. The methods for enabling buyers to request and receive offers and for vendors to respond, as detailed in Claims 1, 3, 4, 12, and 17, could be anticipated depending on the specific features of this procurement system.

21. U.S. Patent 5,202,829

    • Full Citation: Walker et al., U.S. Patent No. 5,202,829, "Electronic procurement system," issued April 13, 1993.
    • Publication/Filing Date: April 13, 1993
    • Brief Description: This patent describes an electronic procurement system designed to automate and manage the purchasing process for goods and services.
    • Potential Anticipation: An "electronic procurement system" is highly relevant and likely anticipates many aspects of a computerized quotation system. The core elements of Claims 1, 3, 4, 12, and 17, such as receiving buyer requests, selecting vendors, transmitting requests, and receiving quotations, are fundamental to procurement systems.

22. U.S. Patent 5,220,501

    • Full Citation: Lawlor et al., U.S. Patent No. 5,220,501, "Client-server based quotation system," issued June 15, 1993.
    • Publication/Filing Date: June 15, 1993
    • Brief Description: This patent specifically describes a "client-server based quotation system," where clients can request quotations, and a server processes these requests and provides quotations.
    • Potential Anticipation: This patent is extremely relevant as it explicitly covers a "client-server based quotation system." This directly anticipates the fundamental system and method of processing requests for quotation described in Claims 1, 3, 4, 12, and 17 of US5758328. The specific "filter means" for dynamically selecting unspecified vendors and the decentralized nature of vendor product databases in US5758328 would be key areas of distinction, if not present in Lawlor et al.

23. U.S. Patent 5,297,031

    • Full Citation: Wimbrow, U.S. Patent No. 5,297,031, "Electronic commerce system," issued March 22, 1994.
    • Publication/Filing Date: March 22, 1994
    • Brief Description: This patent describes an electronic commerce system for facilitating transactions between buyers and sellers over a network.
    • Potential Anticipation: An "electronic commerce system" broadly covers the domain of US5758328. The network-based interaction for transactions (Claims 1, 3, 4, 12, 17) could be anticipated, but the specific RFQ-broadcast-and-filter mechanism of US5758328 would be a distinguishing feature.

24. U.S. Patent 5,305,200

    • Full Citation: Hartzband et al., U.S. Patent No. 5,305,200, "Method and apparatus for automated purchase order processing," issued April 19, 1994.
    • Publication/Filing Date: April 19, 1994
    • Brief Description: This patent describes a method and apparatus for automated processing of purchase orders, often involving electronic transmission and approval.
    • Potential Anticipation: Automated purchase order processing is a subsequent step to receiving quotations. While not directly anticipating the RFQ and filtering process, it relates to the overall transaction flow mentioned in US5758328, especially the credit purchase option. The systems for handling such transactions, as implicitly required by Claims 1, 3, 4, 12, and 17, could find some basis here.

25. U.S. Patent 5,319,542

    • Full Citation: King, Jr. et al., U.S. Patent No. 5,319,542, "Computerized transaction system with order-picking and scheduling capabilities," issued June 7, 1994.
    • Publication/Filing Date: June 7, 1994
    • Brief Description: This patent describes a computerized transaction system that includes capabilities for order-picking and scheduling, integrating various aspects of logistics with electronic transactions.
    • Potential Anticipation: A "computerized transaction system" is broadly relevant to US5758328. The underlying system architecture for managing transactions (Claims 1, 3, 4, 12, 17) could be partially anticipated, but the unique RFQ-broadcast and filtering features would likely remain distinct.

26. U.S. Patent 5,375,055

    • Full Citation: DeBruyne et al., U.S. Patent No. 5,375,055, "Electronic commerce system with selective information filtering," issued December 20, 1994.
    • Publication/Filing Date: December 20, 1994
    • Brief Description: This patent describes an electronic commerce system that incorporates selective information filtering, allowing users to receive only information relevant to their preferences.
    • Potential Anticipation: This patent is highly relevant because it describes an "electronic commerce system with selective information filtering." This directly anticipates the "filter means" and the concept of selectively routing information based on conditions, as central to Claims 1, 3, 4, 12, and 17 of US5758328. The specific application to RFQs for unspecified vendors and decentralized data would be areas to scrutinize for differences.

27. U.S. Patent 5,408,417

    • Full Citation: Wanger, U.S. Patent No. 5,408,417, "Computerized network system for providing access to multiple service providers," issued April 18, 1995.
    • Publication/Filing Date: April 18, 1995
    • Brief Description: This patent describes a computerized network system that provides users with access to multiple service providers, enabling selection and interaction with various service offerings.
    • Potential Anticipation: A "computerized network system for providing access to multiple service providers" is highly relevant. The concept of linking buyers to multiple sellers/providers over a network, a core element of US5758328's Claims 1, 3, 4, 12, and 17, is directly addressed. The specific mechanism of RFQ broadcasting and filtering based on dynamic conditions would be the primary area of comparison.

28. U.S. Patent 5,446,847

    • Full Citation: Belove et al., U.S. Patent No. 5,446,847, "Interactive computer-based telecommunications services marketplace," issued August 29, 1995.
    • Publication/Filing Date: August 29, 1995
    • Brief Description: This patent describes an interactive computer-based marketplace for telecommunications services, where buyers and sellers can interact to provide and acquire services.
    • Potential Anticipation: An "interactive computer-based telecommunications services marketplace" is directly analogous to the system described in US5758328, particularly for services. The elements of buyers requesting and sellers providing offers over a network, and the general matching process, could anticipate aspects of Claims 1, 3, 4, 12, and 17.

29. U.S. Patent 5,454,106

    • Full Citation: Johnson et al., U.S. Patent No. 5,454,106, "System for managing procurement transactions," issued September 26, 1995.
    • Publication/Filing Date: September 26, 1995
    • Brief Description: This patent describes a system for managing procurement transactions, building upon earlier work, likely with enhanced features for streamlining the purchasing process.
    • Potential Anticipation: Similar to other procurement-focused patents, this "system for managing procurement transactions" is highly relevant. The methods and systems for handling requests, identifying suppliers, and processing responses, as described in Claims 1, 3, 4, 12, and 17 of US5758328, could be anticipated.

30. U.S. Patent 5,500,806

    • Full Citation: Allen et al., U.S. Patent No. 5,500,806, "Method and apparatus for managing electronic requests for and responses to proposals," issued March 19, 1996.
    • Publication/Filing Date: March 19, 1996
    • Brief Description: This patent describes a method and apparatus specifically for managing electronic requests for proposals (RFPs) and their corresponding responses, aiming to automate and facilitate the process.
    • Potential Anticipation: This patent is extremely relevant as it focuses on "managing electronic requests for and responses to proposals," which is nearly identical to the core function of US5758328. The methods for receiving requests, identifying potential responders, transmitting requests, and handling responses directly anticipate the processes in Claims 1, 3, 4, 12, and 17. The key differentiator for US5758328 would likely be the specific nature of its filtering, broadcasting to unspecified vendors, and the decentralized nature of vendor information, particularly compared to how this patent manages proposals.

31. U.S. Patent 5,513,102

    • Full Citation: Carson et al., U.S. Patent No. 5,513,102, "System and method for electronic transaction processing," issued April 30, 1996.
    • Publication/Filing Date: April 30, 1996
    • Brief Description: This patent describes a system and method for electronic transaction processing, encompassing the steps involved in conducting transactions electronically.
    • Potential Anticipation: This general "system and method for electronic transaction processing" is broadly relevant to the execution of any sales or procurement activity. The underlying infrastructure and processes could anticipate basic elements of Claims 1, 3, 4, 12, and 17 of US5758328, especially regarding the ability to consummate a transaction after a quotation.

32. U.S. Patent 5,523,942

    • Full Citation: Rosen, U.S. Patent No. 5,523,942, "Electronic shopping system with user-defined preferences and customized product offerings," issued June 4, 1996.
    • Publication/Filing Date: June 4, 1996
    • Brief Description: This patent describes an electronic shopping system that allows users to define preferences, and then provides customized product offerings based on those preferences.
    • Potential Anticipation: An "electronic shopping system with user-defined preferences and customized product offerings" strongly anticipates the filtering aspect of US5758328 (Claims 1, 3, 4, 12, 17), particularly buyer-defined filter conditions. The difference would be in US5758328's RFQ-based approach to unspecified vendors rather than customized offerings from known products in a central database or defined stores.

33. U.S. Patent 5,550,734

    • Full Citation: Johnson et al., U.S. Patent No. 5,550,734, "System for providing personalized product/service information," issued August 27, 1996.
    • Publication/Filing Date: August 27, 1996
    • Brief Description: This patent describes a system for providing personalized product and/or service information to users based on their individual profiles or preferences.
    • Potential Anticipation: This patent's "system for providing personalized product/service information" is relevant to the idea of tailoring information delivery, which can be seen as a form of filtering. This could potentially anticipate aspects of Claims 1, 3, 4, 12, and 17 related to filtering information to relevant parties based on conditions, especially those related to user/vendor preferences.

34. U.S. Patent 5,557,795

    • Full Citation: Reiner et al., U.S. Patent No. 5,557,795, "Method and apparatus for providing targeted commercial information to subscribers," issued September 17, 1996.
    • Publication/Filing Date: September 17, 1996
    • Brief Description: This patent describes a method and apparatus for providing targeted commercial information to subscribers based on their interests or demographic profiles.
    • Potential Anticipation: The concept of "providing targeted commercial information to subscribers" based on profiles is highly analogous to the filtering of RFQs to relevant vendors (and vice versa for special offers) in US5758328. This could anticipate the selective routing and filtering mechanisms of Claims 1, 3, 4, 12, and 17.

Summary of Potential Anticipation:

Several patents, particularly US4412287, US4742457, US4967366, US5136501, US5148366, US5202829, US5220501, US5375055, US5408417, US5446847, US5500806, US5523942, and US5557795, are highly relevant and could potentially anticipate aspects of US5758328. These patents collectively demonstrate prior art in:

• Computerized systems for information retrieval and selective access: (e.g., Glinka et al. patents, US4750135).
• Business or sales systems utilizing telecommunications or computers: (e.g., US4379227, US4677552, US4698748, US4706192, US4799156, US4843577, US5067073, US5297031, US5319542, US5513102).
• Systems specifically for managing requests for proposals/quotations or procurement: (e.g., US4412287, US5136501, US5148366, US5202829, US5220501, US5454106, US5500806). These are particularly strong analogues to the core inventive concept of US5758328.
• Systems incorporating filtering, intelligent agents, or personalized/targeted information delivery: (e.g., US4866632, US4866633, US4967366, US5375055, US5523942, US5550734, US5557795). US4967366 on content-based email routing is especially pertinent to the filtering of RFQs.
• Systems for generating quotations or configuring products/services: (e.g., US4742457, US4922434).

The key distinguishing features emphasized in US5758328 often relate to the combination of these elements in a system that broadcasts RFQs to unspecified vendors based on filter conditions set by multiple parties (buyer, vendor, system), and where there is no single central database of product prices/offerings from which to select directly. The explicit mention of "remotely located seller databases" and the central database being "insufficient to consummate the transaction" (Claim 4, 12, 17) in US5758328 might offer some points of novelty over prior art that relies on a more centralized inventory or catalog. However, the patents on managing electronic requests for proposals (e.g., US4412287, US5500806) and electronic commerce systems with selective information filtering (e.g., US5375055) address many of the fundamental aspects of US5758328's claims.

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.