Appeal No. 2000-0765
Application No. 08/670,929
desired designs, components and criteria. The touchscreen 7 then sends
those selections to the computer 2.
With the use of the touchscreen all changes/selections would be in response to the
user touches. Therefore, we will sustain the rejection of independent claim 1 under 35
U.S.C. § 102.
Appellants argue that Jacobs does not provide advertising as that term is used
in appellants' invention. (See brief at page 5.) We disagree with appellants.
Appellants have not identified any specific definition in the specification to further limit
the term beyond the ordinary definition cited by appellants which we find that Jacobs
teaches. Appellants argue that the products marketed by Jacobs are all digital
information and differ from the example of a washing machine which cannot be
delivered digitally. (See brief at page 6.) We find no limitation to support a distinction
based upon the type of product. Therefore, this argument is not persuasive.
Appellants argue that Jacobs does not disclose a first conspicuous display such as a
picture/image of a product. (See brief at page 6.) We disagree with appellants as
discussed above.
Appellants argue that Jacobs is not necessarily "standalone" and cites to col. 5
of Jacobs’ Figure 1B. We disagree with appellants as discussed above. Jacobs also
teaches an embodiment in Figure 1A and Jacobs discusses at col. 4 a "single
6
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007