Appeal No. 2006-1346 Παγε 4
Application No. 09/845,542
The appellants argue that the cited prior art does not disclose showing a
shopping summary in response to detecting a right click.
We find that Sherr discloses that desired information may be displayed at the
detection of a click of a mouse and that this click may be a right or left click [0062, 0066,
0071, 0085]. The difference argued by the appellants i.e. that the information displayed
upon detection of the right mouse click (shopping summary) relates only to the specific
information which is displayed at the detection of the right click.
The specific content of the display will not patentably distinguish the subject
matter. Once the apparatus and capabilities of displaying information upon a detection
of a right mouse click are taught by Sherr, the particular information displayed does not
distinguish the invention from the prior art. The only difference is in the content of the
display not the structure of the apparatus permitting the display. See In re Gulack, 703
F.2d 138, 1385, 217 USPQ 401, 404 (Fed.Cir. 1983) where the critical question was
whether there exists any new and unobvious functional relationship between the printed
matter and a substrate. In the instant case, there is clearly no unobvious functional
relationship between the content of the display (printed matter) and the apparatus
(substrate) which permits the display of the content. One type of textual content (e.g.
order page) would have been equally obvious over any of other type of textual content,
as far as the structure is concerned, because the content in no way changes the
apparatus structure and/or function. We agree with the appellants that there is a cause
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007