Appeal No. 2001-2051
Application 08/923,293
particular good or service. Therefore, the rejection of claim 1
and its dependent claims 2-6 is reversed.
Claim 7 recites, inter alia, an operator interface for
inputting requests for "the purchase of goods or services,"
"means for processing inputted requests and for filtering
relevant history information regarding said inputted requests
from said database," and "whereby goods and/or services
identification information corresponding to goods and/or services
purchased by previous customers who have purchased the goods
and/or services requested by said potential customers are
transmitted to said operator interface for use by said potential
customers" (emphasis added). This requires filtering the
purchasing history of previous customers based on "the goods
and/or services requested by said potential customers," which we
interpret to be equivalent to "specifying a particular good or
service to be used as filter data," as recited in claim 1. As we
found with respect to claim 1, neither Robinson nor Payton
discloses specifying a particular good or service to be used as
filter data for a recommendation. Therefore, the rejection of
claim 7 and its dependent claims 8-15 is reversed.
Claim 16 is broader than claims 1 and 7 and, we conclude,
would have been obvious over Robinson and Payton. The limitation
of "input means for receiving user commands representing any of a
plurality of goods or services to be used as filter data" is
- 8 -
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007