Appeal 2007-0896
Application 09/731,019
1 Claims 1-2 and 7-17 rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as obvious over Epinions
2 and Salas.
3 From the above Findings of Fact, supported by substantial evidence, we
4 conclude that
5 • The art applied shows or suggests one vote per person, and it shows or
6 suggests votes applied toward rating usefulness or product or service
7 reviews (FF 10&13).
8 • The nature of the textual material the votes apply to cannot define the
9 invention over the art because the descriptive material is not functionally
10 related to the substrate (see Ngai).
11 As the Examiner has shown how the combination of Epinions and Salas
12 describes the remaining claimed subject matter, we do not find reversible error.
13 Accordingly we sustain the Examiner's rejection of claims 1-2 and 7-17 under
14 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as obvious over Epinions and Salas.
15
16 Claims 1-2 and 7-17 rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as obvious over Klingman.16
17 From the above Findings of Fact, supported by substantial evidence, we
18 conclude that
19 • The nature of the textual material the votes apply to cannot define the
20 invention over the art because the descriptive material is not functionally
21 related to the substrate (see Ngai).
22 As the Examiner has shown how Klingman describes the remaining claimed
23 subject matter, we do not find reversible error.
10
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013