Appeal No. 2000-0765
Application No. 08/670,929
OPINION
In reaching our decision in this appeal, we have given careful consideration to
appellants' specification and claims, to the applied prior art references, and to the
respective positions articulated by appellants and the examiner. As a consequence of
our review, we make the determinations which follow.
At the outset, we generally agree with the examiner's rejections and application
of the prior art with one exception concerning the dragging and dropping to initiate a
search. With this said, we will address appellants' arguments in the order made in the
brief and reply brief.
Appellants argue that the term "advertising" or "ad" have a prominent definition
“to give conspicuous notice or information . . . to the public . . . especially, to praise
publicly in this way to encourage buying." (See brief at page 5.) We agree with
appellants that advertising information may be viewed differently than general
information. With this definition established, we find that Jacobs expressly teaches the
use of advertising information at col. 18. Jacobs states:
The product selection module 300 (FIG. 16) is divided into three main
parts, shown in FIG. 28, namely a marketing loop 301, a customer
selection module 320 and a product list retrieval module 340. The
marketing loop 301, which includes steps 302 to 312 (FIG. 24), shows
how the computer 2 is programmed to display the pictures and sound the
audio for attracting customers to the kiosk 10 and showing them the kinds
of products that they can purchase.
At col. 19 Jacobs states that:
4
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007