Appeal No. 2000-0765
Application No. 08/670,929
page 8.) We find no express limitation that the image displayed conspicuously is
replaced by another advertising image. (Emphasis added.) This argument implies that
all advertising would have contained an image. We find no express limitation to support
this interpretation. Additionally, in our opinion, once the customer is attracted to the
terminal initially, the display of products continues to be advertising until the customer
makes a selection or purchases a product in Jacobs. Therefore, the sequencing of
products would continue to be advertising. Jacobs states at col. 19 that the user can
retrieve the complete products and product components from the files 17
and 18, assemble the components and display the products or assembled
components according to a screen format selected by the customer. The
questions of steps 401, 405, 406, 411, 412, 413, 415 and 416 preferably
appear as buttons in the margins of the screen displays that show the
products to the customer. The customer can touch the touchscreen 7
over the button 401 to view the groups of products presented
simultaneously on the same screen. Otherwise, the products are
presented one by one.
Clearly, there are user touches and screen/display changes which would include both
text and images. Therefore, this argument is not persuasive.
Appellants argue that the examiner's position that greeting cards constitute
advertising is not supported by the teachings of Jacobs. (See brief at page 8.) We
disagree with appellants as discussed above. Again, appellants argue that Jacobs
does not teach or suggest advertising to attract the attention of an unconnected public.
(See brief at page 8.) We disagree as discussed above.
8
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007