Appeal No. 2000-0765
Application No. 08/670,929
col. 5, it would have been apparent to skilled artisans that the objects would be a
collection of sub-objects. The logo of the catalog would be one such sub-object.
Additionally, it is our opinion that a company logo would also be on the banner at the
top of the page. Additionally, other screens for payment would additionally have other
logos, such as VISAŽ in Figure 14. Therefore, this argument is not persuasive, and we
will sustain the examiner's rejection of dependent claim 3. With respect to dependent
claim 4, both Jacobs and Cameron disclose the use of scroll functions as discussed
above. Thererfore, we will sustain the examiner's rejection of dependent claim 4.
Appellants argue that claim 25 recites a logo and relies on the arguments made
with respect to claim 23. For the same reasons, we do not find this argument
persuasive, and we will sustain the rejection of claim 25.
With respect to claim 26, appellants argue that all the sub-objects are included
in the ad object. (See brief at page 16.) We agree with appellants that the examiner
has not established that all of the enumerated sub-objects would have been included
in the ad object. Therefore, we will not sustain the rejection of dependent claim 26.
With respect to the drag and drop interaction and Taligent reference, appellants
argue that Taligent is not a proper reference and that the examiner's reliance upon the
copyright date is not sufficient to establish that the pages were published before the
filing date of the current application. (See brief at page 17.) While we agree with
appellants that the copy of the citation provided by the examiner was printed after the
15
Page: Previous 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007