Appeal No. 2007-0369
Application No. 09/439,626
We disagree with the Examiner’s rationale. Claim 29, recites an
“interface adapted to provide a representation of a consumer item and an
option associated with the consumer item.” Claim 29 further recites a
“presentation module adapted to indicate to the user unavailability of at least
one other option associated with the consumer item based on the update to
the consumer item.” Independent claims 36 and 42 contain similar
limitations. The term “option” is not defined in the Appellants’
specification. However, the term is used on pages 5 and 6 of Appellants’
specification to identify choices the user has available. Thus, the scope of
claim 29 is that a consumer is provided a representation of a consumer item
which represents a choice the consumer has made about the item. Further,
the interface identifies to the user other choices which are unavailable based
upon the earlier made choices.
Fisher teaches a system, which allows a consumer to view some
products, such as furniture and drapes, manufactured with different fabric
covering. See Abstract. When the user selects the icon adjacent the fabric
swatch, a representation of either the furniture or drapes, in the selected
fabric, is shown. See column 4, lines 31 through 36. Fisher teaches that the
availability or unavailability of certain fabrics is displayed. See figure 3,
note that fabric swatch S1 has the icon of a chair and curtain (indicating
availability of both products made with the fabric) where as swatch S2 only
4
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013