Appeal 2007-0325
Application 09/780,248
1 screen refresh following the triggering of a refresh button is within the broad scope
2 of the claim.
3 Accordingly we sustain the Examiner's rejection of claims 23, 24, and 27 under
4 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as obvious over Barzilai and Auction This!.
5
6 Claims 25 and 26 rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as obvious over Barzilai,
7 Auction This!, and Dinwoodie.
8 The art applied shows or suggests streaming video or stop motion video in an
9 auction environment (FF28).
10 Accordingly we sustain the Examiner's rejection of claims 25 and 26 under 35
11 U.S.C. § 103(a) as obvious over Barzilai, Auction This!, and Dinwoodie.
12
13 Claim 17 rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as obvious over Barzilai and Ladner.
14 The art applied shows or suggests a three-dimensional view of an item for sale
15 in an auction environment (FF31). The Appellant contends that Ladner does not
16 show an auction context (Br. 11). However, an auction is a method of selling, and
17 Barzilai makes the connection between linking sales and auctions within the same
18 system, so Ladner’s sales context would have been obvious to a person of ordinary
19 skill in the art.
20 Accordingly we sustain the Examiner's rejection of claim 17 under 35 U.S.C.
21 § 103(a) as obvious over Barzilai and Ladner.
22
18
Page: Previous 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013