Appeal No. 2004-2289
Application No. 09/825,337
“a purchaser terminal configured to enable a user to view both the specific-item
catalogue information and the relevant-item catalogue information on the homepage,
and to send a purchase request to a relevant-item seller module by designating the
item relevant to the specific item so as to purchase the designated item” and
“wherein the specific item is sold by the specific-item seller module, and the
relevant-item seller module is different from the specific-item seller module.”
Independent claims 1, 5 and 14 contain similar limitations. Thus, we find that the
scope of the independent claims includes the limitations that the specific-item seller
sells the specific item and the relevant item is sold by a different seller. We
disagree with the appellants’ statement, on page 7 of the brief, that Bezos fails to
teach that the “associate” could be a product vendor. We find that Bezos does teach
that the “associate” sells items in that the associate presents items for sale on the
associate’s website. See, for example, figure 10A which depicts a sample of an
associate’s website. However, we do not find that Bezos teaches that the specific-
item is sold by one seller and the relevant item is sold by another seller. We find
that Bezos teaches that the items sold by the associate are all routed through a
single merchant, however, we find no disclosure that the items sold by the associate
can be routed through more than one merchant or that the associate acts as the
merchant for some of the items sold. Thus, we find that the combination of Tavor
and Bezos does not teach all of the limitations of independent claims 1, 5, 9 and 14.
Accordingly, we will not sustain the examiner’s rejection of claims 1-15.
5
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007