Appeal No. 2003-0466
Application No. 08/871,964
Turning to claims 1 and 4, appellants’ arguments (brief,
pages 22 through 28) to the contrary notwithstanding, we agree
with the examiner (answer, page 10) that “eShop teaches all of
the recited functionality in the claims” as well as “the
structural limitations recited in the claims” because “eShop is
implemented through the World Wide Web, thereby incorporating
World Wide Web browsers and World Wide Web servers, including a
cyber mall server, various databases, and a cyber shop client
(e.g., a merchant terminal).” Thus, the 35 U.S.C. § 102(a)
rejection of claims 1 and 4 is sustained.
Turning lastly to appellants’ arguments (brief, pages
28 through 30) concerning dependent claims 5 through 10 and
12 through 14, we agree with the examiner’s analysis (answer,
page 11) that the system features of these claims are either
explicitly or inherently a part of the eShop system.
7
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007