Appeal 2007-0458
Application 10/247,533
addition of Brown fails to teach or suggest highlighting one or more
displayed items responsive to selecting a keyword as claimed as previously
argued in connection with independent claim 1 (Br. 7-8). For the reasons
previously discussed, however, the rejection is therefore sustained.
Likewise, we will sustain the examiner's rejection of claim 23 under
35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Yagasaki in view of Card and
further in view of Gennaro. We find that (1) the Examiner has established at
least a prima facie case of obviousness for this claim (Answer 11-12), and
(2) Appellant has not persuasively rebutted the Examiner's prima facie case.
In this regard, Appellant merely noted that the addition of Gennaro fails to
teach or suggest highlighting one or more displayed items responsive to
selecting a keyword as claimed as previously argued in connection with
independent claim 1 (Br. 8). For the reasons previously discussed, however,
the rejection is therefore sustained.
We next consider the Examiner’s rejection of claims 7-9, 11, 14, and
17-22 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Coombs in view of
Rebane. Regarding independent claim 7, the Examiner’s rejection
essentially finds that Coombs discloses a distributed network browser
viewable interface with every claimed feature except for a drop down menu
having at least one selectable keyword as claimed. The Examiner cites
Rebane as disclosing this feature and concludes that it would have been
obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to
include a drop down menu in the website taught by Coombs to aid the user
in finding a merchant of interest (Answer 12-13).
Regarding independent claim 7, Appellant argues that the prior art
does not teach using a drop down menu working in concert with an interface
12
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013