Appeal 2007-0458
Application 10/247,533
In our view, Yagasaki’s displaying the hit count associated with each
respective store in Fig. 8 fully meets “highlighting” one or more displayed
items based on their respective relationships with the selected keyword as
claimed giving the term “highlighting” its broadest reasonable interpretation.
For example, “Store B” is indicated as having the highest hit count (7) for all
stores satisfying the search conditions (i.e., “STORE B” is “highlighted” as
having the most products within the “HOLIDAY SEASON” category).
Our interpretation of “highlighting” fully comports with Appellant’s
specification. Significantly, Appellant’s specification notes that an example
of highlighting can include dropping the listing of merchants into another
web page (Specification ¶ 0043) – an example commensurate with the list of
stores in display area 53b in Fig. 8 of Yagasaki. In addition, the
specification indicates that forms of highlighting include, among other
things, “…any…change that will temporarily distinguish the merchant from
the other merchants on the web page” (Id.). In our view, indicating the
respective hit counts associated with each merchant in Fig. 8 of Yagasaki
would at least temporarily distinguish the stores having the most (e.g.,
“STORE B”) and the fewest (“STORE E”) products in the specified
category from the other stores in the list.
For at least these reasons, we conclude that Yagasaki fully meets all
limitations of independent claims 1 and 24 and therefore anticipates those
claims.1 We reach this conclusion since obviousness rejections can be based
1 We further note that the scope and breadth of at least independent claims 1
and 24 does not preclude the selective highlighting feature in an automated
search tool used by patent examiners and the public – the Examiner
Automated Search Tool (EAST). See generally
http://www.uspto.gov/web/offices/ac/ido/pssd (last visited Apr. 4, 2007)
6
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013