Appeal No. 2000-0765
Application No. 08/670,929
special product list, until all other products have been displayed. [Jacobs
at col. 16.]
Therefore, we agree with the examiner that Jacobs teaches the display of an
advertising image and replacing images of related or similar products, and we will
sustain the rejection of independent claims 5 and 6.
With respect to independent claims 17 and 18, appellants incorporate the same
argument as with respect to claim 1. We agree with the examiner that Jacobs teaches
the display of an advertising image and replacing images of related or similar products
and this programed computer would have a storage medium to store the computer
program to produce the desired functionality. Therefore, this argument is not
persuasive, and we will sustain the rejection of independent claims 17 and 18.
With respect to dependent claim 2, appellants argue that Jacobs does not teach
the use of object oriented programming (OOP) and that even though well known,
Jacobs did not employ OOP and there is no suggestion to use OOP. (See brief at page
10.) First, the language of claim 2 does not require object oriented programming. An
object may be deemed the image stored in the memory in a format which may be
output to the display. Second, if "advertising objects" is specifically directed to OOP,
we agree with the examiner that OOP along with many other programming formats
were well known and that skilled artisans would have been motivated to use OOP and
that the data items would have been stored as "objects." Again, appellants rely upon
10
Page: Previous 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007