Appeal 2007-0325
Application 09/780,248
1 • Whether claims 23, 24, and 27 are properly rejected as obvious over Barzilai
2 and Auction This!.
3 o Whether the art applied teaches or suggests automatically updating
4 said displaying on each of said plurality of computers with new
5 information (Br. 10-11 – also see Footnote 4 supra).
6 • Whether claims 25 and 26 are properly rejected as obvious over Barzilai,
7 Auction This!, and Dinwoodie.
8 o Whether the art applied teaches or suggests streaming video or stop
9 motion video (Br. 11).
10 • Whether claim 17 is properly rejected as obvious over Barzilai and Ladner.
11 o Whether the art applied teaches or suggests a three-dimensional view
12 of an item for sale (Br. 11).
13 • Whether claim 18 is properly rejected as obvious over Barzilai and Scaer.
14 o Whether the art applied shows or suggests a screen tip indicating bid
15 amounts (Br. 11).
16 • Whether claim 20 is properly rejected as obvious over Shoham and Scaer.
17 o Whether the art applied shows or suggests a screen tip associated with
18 an item for sale (Br. 12).
19 • Whether claims 21 and 22 are properly rejected as obvious over Shoham,
20 Barzilai, and Scaer.
21 o Whether the art applied shows or suggests a screen tip associated with
22 an item for sale (Br. 12).
7
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013