Appeal No. 2006-0773
Application 09/845,362
The portions of Henson relied upon by the examiner disclose that 1) a configurator provides
merchandising recommendations for add-on options, 2) everything in the configurator is
specific to a given computer chassis and universe of options within that chassis, and 3) if a
user wants to switch to a different chassis the user must exit the configurator, go back to the
welcome page, and select a new chassis and its universe of options.
The new universe of options presented to Henson’s user when the user switches to a
different chassis are not in the user’s shopping cart. Henson does not disclose that when
the user switches to the different chassis, a server changes an attribute of a secondary item
in the shopping cart as required by the appellants’ claims.
The examiner does not rely upon Chandramohan for any disclosure that remedies
the above-discussed deficiency in Henson, and does not explain how the applied references
would have fairly suggested the above-discussed claim requirement to one of ordinary skill
in the art.
The examiner, therefore, has not carried the burden of establishing a prima facie
case of anticipation or obviousness of the appellants’ claimed invention.
DECISION
The rejections of claims 1-4, 14-22 and 24-28 under 35 U.S.C. § 102(e) over
Henson, and claims 13 and 23 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 over Henson in view of
Chandramohan, are reversed.
REVERSED
4
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007