Appeal 2007-0458
Application 10/247,533
involves a wide variety of viewable interfaces for displaying search results.
Moreover, the claims are hardly limited to internet searching and marketing.
But even assuming, without deciding, that Card is somehow not in the
same field of endeavor, Card nevertheless is reasonably pertinent to the
Appellant’s problem – namely, highlighting certain displayed items in a
search result set. We see no reason why Card’s teachings would not have
been reasonably pertinent to a wide variety of applications involving
displaying search result sets, including internet commerce applications.
Accordingly, Card constitutes analogous art.
Appellant also contends that the Examiner failed to provide the
requisite motivation to make the specific claimed combination. Specifically,
Appellant argues that there would be no apparent advantage in modifying
Yagasaki’s interface in view of Card (i.e., with slide controls or
highlighting) since Yagasaki’s interface already allows the user to ascertain
stores with products that satisfy the user’s search condition (Br. 9-10).
Appellant also notes even if Yagasaki were modified by the teachings of
Card, the skilled artisan would apply slide controls – a favored approach
over highlighting (Br. 10-11). Appellant further notes that Card teaches
away from highlighting since Card indicates that displaying only the items
matching the query (i.e., the “expand/contract” approach) is significantly
faster than highlighted displays (Br. 11).
The Examiner responds by noting that Yagasaki’s online mall
produces a list of merchants that satisfy specific search criteria, and Card
teaches highlighting certain items in a list of alphanumeric data in Figs. 6
and 7. Although the Examiner acknowledges Card’s teaching that the
expand/contract approach is faster than highlighting, the Examiner indicates
9
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013