Appeal No. 2000-2210
Application No. 09/002,828
We further find to be unpersuasive Appellant’s arguments
with regard to the claimed “system services component.” We are
in agreement with the Examiner that the screen displays disclosed
in relation to Figures 6-8 of Hellhake which suggest available
“services” such as on-line catalogs, ordering and shipping,
feedback contact information, etc., clearly provide a disclosure
of a “system services component” as broadly set forth in
Appellant’s claims. We are also of the opinion that Appellant’s
argument alleging Hellhake’s lack of a disclosure of a system
services component” improperly attempts to narrow the scope of
the claim by implicitly adding disclosed limitations which have
no basis in the claim. See In re Morris, 127 F.3d 1048, 1054-55,
44 USPQ2d 1023, 1027-28 (Fed. Cir. 1997). We find no language in
any of the appealed independent claims 1, 7, 14, and 19 which
requires any of the particular system services argued by
Appellant to be lacking in Hellhake.
For the above reasons, it is our opinion that, since the
Examiner’s prima facie case of obviousness has not been rebutted
by any convincing arguments from Appellant, the Examiner’s
35 U.S.C. § 103(a) rejection of independent claims 1, 7, 14, and
19 is sustained.
11
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007