Appeal 2007-0458
Application 10/247,533
of interest. We recognize that that if the Examiner’s proposed modification
renders the prior art unsatisfactory for its intended purpose, the Examiner
has failed to make a prima facie case of obviousness. See In re Gordon, 733
F.2d 900, 221 USPQ 1125 (Fed. Cir. 1984). But we fail to see how
providing an additional search tool on the displayed pages of Coombs would
somehow defeat or obviate Coombs’ screen rotation feature. In our view,
providing an additional search tool in Coombs’ system, such as a drop down
menu, would only enhance its capability. Moreover, we see no reason why
the skilled artisan would not have rotated the four screens of merchants in
Fig. 18 of Rebane in view of the teachings of Coombs to more equitably
expose the merchants listed among the four screens.
For at least these reasons, the collective teachings of Coombs and
Rebane amply teach or suggest all limitations of independent claim 7. Also,
there is ample motivation on this record to combine the references.
Therefore, the Examiner’s rejection of independent claim 7 is sustained.
Since Appellant has not separately argued the patentability of dependent
claims 8-22 with particularity, these claims fall with independent claim 7.
See In re Nielson, 816 F.2d 1567, 1572, 2 USPQ2d 1525, 1528 (Fed. Cir.
1987); see also 37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(1)(vii).
DECISION
We have sustained the Examiner's rejections with respect to all claims
on appeal. Therefore, the Examiner’s decision rejecting claims 1-28 is
affirmed.
No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with
this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a)(1)(iv).
14
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013