Appeal No. 2006-2225
Application No. 09/815,439
noted previously, we nevertheless conclude that the skilled artisan would reasonably have
combined the references since both references present information to the user
hierarchically and therefore constitute analogous art. Furthermore, Kiger explains the role
of depth and breadth of menus and tree structures in user interfaces. At a minimum, Kiger
explains what constitutes depth and breadth information and such teachings would have
reasonably suggested identifying such types of information in the customized information
retrieval system of Herz. The examiner’s combination of references is reasonable.
The examiner’s rejection of claims 1 and 24 is therefore sustained. Since appellant
has not separately argued the patentability of dependent claims 2-6 and 25-27, these
claims fall with independent claims 1 and 24. See In re Nielson, 816 F.2d 1567, 1572, 2
USPQ2d 1525, 1528 (Fed. Cir. 1987). See also 37 CFR § 41.37(c)(i)(vii).
We next consider the examiner’s rejection of claims 7, 9-20, 28, and 30 under 35
U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Herz in view of Kiger and further in view of
Bodnar. We will sustain the examiner's rejection. We find that the examiner has
established at least a prima facie case of obviousness that appellant has not
persuasively rebutted. Specifically, the examiner has (1) pointed out the teachings of
Herz and Kiger, (2) pointed out the perceived differences between those references and
the claimed invention, and (3) reasonably indicated how and why the references would
have been modified to arrive at the claimed invention [answer, pages 7-16].
Once the examiner has satisfied the burden of presenting a prima facie case of
obviousness, the burden then shifts to appellant to present evidence or arguments that
11
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007