Appeal 2007-0458
Application 10/247,533
list that satisfy the search criteria. The Examiner finds that it would have
been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to
modify Yagasaki’s system to display all stores within the screen and
highlight stores with products satisfying the search conditions as suggested
by Card (Answer 6-8).
Regarding independent claims 1 and 24, Appellant argues that the
prior art does not teach or suggest any process wherein when one of a list of
keywords is selected by the user, one or more displayed items will be
highlighted based on their respective relationships with the selected keyword
as claimed (Br. 6-8). The Examiner responds that Yagasaki and Card
collectively teach this limitation since (1) Yagasaki invokes a search query
by selecting a keyword from a drop down list, and (2) Card teaches
highlighting displayed items responsive to a query -- the highlighting being
based on the items’ respective relationships with selected search parameters
(Answer 21).
We will sustain the Examiner’s rejection of independent claims 1 and
24. At the outset, we note that the scope and breadth of these claims does
not preclude the teachings of Yagasaki alone. That is, we find that Yagasaki
actually anticipates claims 1 and 24. In this regard, Yagasaki discloses in
Fig. 7 a drop down menu 52b, 52ba comprising multiple selectable
“keywords” pertaining to a product category (e.g., “FOOD & DRINK,”
“FASHION,” “HOLIDAY SEASON,” etc.). When one of these keywords
is selected (e.g., “HOLIDAY SEASON” as shown in Fig. 8), the per-store
hit count screen 53 displays each individual store and the numbers of
products for each store (hit count) that match the selected product category
(Yagasaki, Fig. 8; col. 7, ll. 13-28).
5
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013