Ex Parte Stinson et al - Page 5



                Appeal No. 2006-1429                                                                              
                Application No. 10/437,995                                                                        
                color, the users are submitting a request for a page, which includes an identifier of the         
                business entity.  In response to this request, the new page with a depiction of the product       
                or product of a different color, is presented to the user with the label information.  We         
                note, as the examiner identifies, that claim 1 is not limited to a catalog system where           
                there is more then one merchant.  Accordingly, we find ample evidence to support the              
                examiner’s finding that Eddie Bauer discloses the device claimed in claim 1 and we                
                sustain the examiner’s rejection under 35 U.S.C. § 102.                                           
                       Regarding claims 6 and 7, appellants’ only argument directed to these claims               
                states:                                                                                           
                              Regarding claim 6, as discussed above, Eddie Bauer does not teach or                
                              suggest “surface material samples.”  Regarding claim 7, Eddie Bauer does            
                              not teach or suggest “associated certain surface material samples” with             
                              certain business entity products.                                                   
                37 C.F.R. § 41.37 (c)(1)(vii) states: “A statement which merely points out what a claim           
                recites will not be considered an argument for separate patentability of the claim.”              
                Accordingly, we do not consider claims 6 and 7 to be argued separately from claim 1 and           
                group claims 6 and 7 with claim 1.  Nonetheless, as discussed with respect to claim 1 we          
                find that Eddie Bauer does teach surface material samples associated with a business              
                entity.  Accordingly, we sustain the examiner’s rejection of claims 6 and 7 under                 
                35 U.S.C. § 102.                                                                                  
                       Appellants have presented no arguments directed to claims 8 through 10, 12, 13             
                and 17 through 20.  Accordingly, we sustain the examiner’s rejection of claims 8 through          
                10, 12, 13 and 17 through 20 for the reasons discussed supra with respect to claim 1.             

                                    Rejection of claim 2 under 35 U.S.C. § 102                                    
                       Appellants argue, on page 6 of the brief, that Eddie Bauer does not teach or               
                suggest layered responses to data requests according to supply chain layer as is claimed.         
                Appellants reason:                                                                                
                              Eddie Bauer merely teaches conventional user-selected hyperlinks for                
                              different clothing categories.  One skilled in the art would not fairly             
                              consider clothing categories in a conventional online clothing catalog such         


                                                        5                                                         



Page:  Previous  1  2  3  4  5  6  7  8  9  10  11  Next 

Last modified: November 3, 2007