Appeal 2007-0896
Application 09/731,019
1 Epinions would render Salas unsuitable for its intended purpose, and that
2 Klingman does not show application to reviewing reviews.
3
4 FACTS PERTINENT TO THE ISSUES (FF)
5 The following facts, supported by a preponderance of substantial evidence, are
6 pertinent to the above issues.
7 01. NowThis shows a copy of a textual display as it appeared on the
8 Amazon.com web site.
9 02. At the end of the textual display, as it appeared on the Amazon.com web
10 site, there is a statement that “1 people found this review helpful. 0 did
11 not.” This is followed by the question “Was it helpful to you?”. This
12 question in turn is followed by two possible answers in brackets, “[YES]”
13 and “[NO].” The brackets with answers within them imply the reader is to
14 select one of the answers, and that the selection would be transmitted to
15 Amazon.com. Such a query followed by potential answers to select would
16 have presented a user interface on the Amazon.com web site to solicit the
17 requested information.
18 03. The statement as to how many people did and did not find the review
19 helpful, implies that Amazon retains a count of how may YES and NO
20 responses are transmitted.
21 04. Thus, NowThis shows that the Amazon.com web site had a user interface
22 that displayed product/service reviews from a database on a client display
23 connected to the database over the network; provided an interactive
24 element associated with each of the displayed reviews on a client display,
25 which when clicked by a user, indicated that the user has found a
5
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013