Appeal No. 2000-0765
Application No. 08/670,929
At pages 8-9 of the brief, appellants argue that Jacobs does not teach the
changing of the display when a user acts. We disagree as discussed above. Since
appellants have not rebutted the prima facie case of anticipation established by the
examiner, we will sustain the rejection of independent claim 1 under 35 U.S.C. § 102.
With respect to independent claims 5 and 6, appellants argue that Jacobs does
not teach "displaying advertising information" and "replacing the image." (See brief at
page 9.) We disagree with appellants for the same reasons as discussed with respect
to independent claim 1. While claim 5 specifies that the image is replaced with an
image of a selected product, Jacobs teaches the display of products and related
products, such as, other cards for the same occasion which may be selected.
Specifically, Jacobs discloses that:
[t]he product retrieval and presentation module 400 (FIG. 34) includes an
optional feature that limits the initial display of products to the first "x"
number of products on the list (step 404). After the customer has viewed
this group of products, he presses a "next" button (step 405) in order to
see the next group of "x" number of products. The module 400 also allows
the customer to view two or more products at the same time (steps 401
and 402). One or more of the products may be simultaneously displayed
and held on the screen as a miniature which the customer can enlarge to
fill the screen by touching the portion of the touchscreen 12 over the
miniature. Thus, the customer may readily recall products displayed
earlier. The presentation module 400 also allows the customer to scroll
forward or backward through the groups of products (step 406). In
alternative embodiment not illustrated, the module 400 may hold up the
display of products meeting criteria other than those designated on a
9
Page: Previous 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007