Appeal No. 2003-0466
Application No. 08/871,964
Reference is made to the briefs (paper numbers 38 and 41)
and the answer (paper number 39) for the respective positions of
the appellants and the examiner.
OPINION
For all of the reasons expressed by the examiner, and for
the additional reasons set forth infra, we will sustain the
anticipation rejection of claims 1 through 10 and 12 through 14.
Appellants have challenged the propriety of using the
Internet publications as evidence of activity under paragraph (a)
of 35 U.S.C. § 102 that will preclude the patentability of the
claimed invention (brief, pages 12 through 17). To be more
specific, appellants argue that the January 1, 1996 date printed
in the lower right hand corner on each sheet of the Internet
documents conflicts with the January 23, 1996 press release date
noted on page 1 of the eShop In The News publication. We agree
with the examiner’s position (answer, page 5) that:
The Appellant has [sic] made a valid point in
stating that the references applied in the art
rejection were not likely posted on the Internet
exactly on January 1, 1996, due to the fact that one of
the press releases cited is dated January 23, 1996.
However, the Appellant’s [sic] argument is moot since
claims 1-10 and 12-14 stand rejected as being clearly
anticipated by the “Internet version of eShop, the
latest update of which was launched on November 7,
1995.” The Examiner asserts that the cited references
describe the Internet version of eShop as it existed on
3
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007