Appeal 2007-0458
Application 10/247,533
OPINION
It is our view, after consideration of the record before us, that the
evidence relied upon and the level of skill in the particular art would have
suggested to one of ordinary skill in the art the invention set forth in the
claims on appeal. Accordingly, we affirm.
We first consider the Examiner’s rejection of claims 1-3, 6, and 24-28
under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Yagasaki in view of Card. In
rejecting claims under 35 U.S.C. § 103, it is incumbent upon the Examiner
to establish a factual basis to support the legal conclusion of obviousness.
See In re Fine, 837 F.2d 1071, 1073, 5 USPQ2d 1596, 1598 (Fed. Cir.
1988). In so doing, the Examiner must make the factual determinations set
forth in Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 17, 148 USPQ 459, 467
(1966). If that burden is met, the burden then shifts to the Appellant to
overcome the prima facie case with argument and/or evidence. Obviousness
is then determined on the basis of the evidence as a whole and the relative
persuasiveness of the arguments. See In re Oetiker, 977 F.2d 1443, 1445, 24
USPQ2d 1443, 1444 (Fed. Cir. 1992).
Regarding independent claims 1 and 24, the Examiner's rejection
indicates that Yagasaki teaches a “mall server” that enables users to search
for and buy desired products. According to the Examiner, Yagasaki
comprises essentially every claimed feature except for a directory of
displayed items such that when the user selects one of the keywords, one or
more displayed items is highlighted based on their respective relationships
with the selected keyword as claimed. The Examiner cites Card as teaching
displaying search results in a graphical user interface. The Examiner notes
that Card’s system displays a list of all items and highlights items within the
4
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013