Appeal 2007-0896
Application 09/731,019
1 ISSUES
2 The issues pertinent to this appeal are
3 • Whether the rejection of claims 1-2 and 7-17 under 35 U.S.C. § 102(a) as
4 anticipated by, or in the alternative, under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as obvious
5 over NowThis is proper.
6 o Whether NowThis shows or suggests a user interface and whether
7 NowThis shows or suggests that the interface would have limited
8 votes to one per person (Br. 9-12).
9 • Whether the rejection of claims 1-2 and 7-17 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
10 obvious over Epinions and Salas is proper.
11 o Whether the art applied shows or suggests one vote per person,
12 whether it shows or suggests votes applied toward rating usefulness or
13 product or service reviews, and whether what the nature of the textual
14 material the votes apply to can define the invention over the art (Br.
15 12-15).
16 • Whether the rejection of claims 1-2 and 7-17 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
17 obvious over Klingman is proper.
18 o Whether the art applied shows or suggests votes applied toward rating
19 usefulness or product or service reviews, and whether what the nature
20 of the textual material the votes apply to can define the invention over
21 the art (Br. 15-16).
22 In particular, the Appellant contends that what the interface written about in
23 NowThis is speculative, that the Examiner may not rely on official notice of the
24 notoriety of one voter per person because other voting methods also exist, that
4
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013