Appeal No. 2006-1346 Παγε 6
Application No. 09/845,542
sustain the examiner's rejection of claim 5 because the appellants have made similar
arguments with respect to this claim.
In regard to claim 3, the appellants argue that Sherr does not disclose a web
page overlay that includes a shopping summary.
We agree with the examiner that Sherr suggests the subject matter of claim 3 by
disclosing that a streaming box 206 can be used to display additional information to the
user, such as a page to purchase the content [0066]. Therefore, we will sustain the
examiner's rejection of claim 3. We will sustain the examiner's rejection of claim 6 for
the same reasons.
In regard to claims 7, 8, and 9, appellants argue that the prior art does not
disclose or suggest displaying a bidding summary. We will sustain this rejection
because as we stated above the exact information displayed in response to the
detection of a right click does not patentably distinguish the claimed subject matter. In
addition, as Sherr discloses displaying an order page with a list or summary of items
purchased, a person of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to display
any type of summary desired.
In regard to claim 10, the appellants argue that there is no disclosure of deriving
a screen location from screen coordinates of a computer mouse.
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007