Appeal 2007-0896
Application 09/731,019
1
2 ANALYSIS
3 We note that the Appellant argue these claims as a group. Accordingly, we
4 select claim 1 as representative of the group.
5 Claims 1-2 and 7-17 rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 102(a) as anticipated by, or in the
6 alternative, under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as obvious over NowThis.
7 From the above Findings of Fact, supported by substantial evidence, we
8 conclude that
9 • NowThis suggests, but does not anticipatorily show, a user interface and
10 whether that NowThis shows or suggests that the interface would have
11 limited votes to one per person (FF 04& 08).
12 As to the Appellants’ contention that Amazon.com’s user interface is
13 speculation, the interface display is presented directly in NowThis, and the
14 question and answers imply how a person of ordinary skill in the art would have
15 understood Amazon.com’s site to have reacted to selection of an answer. As to the
16 Appellants’ contention that there are other voting methods available, the nature of
17 the material being voted on requires one vote per person, and thus the general
18 problem facing the inventor would have led a person of ordinary skill in the art to
19 the use of one vote per person.
20 Accordingly we sustain the Examiner's rejection of claims 1-2 and 7-17 under
21 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as obvious over by NowThis, but we do not sustain the
22 rejection under 35 U.S.C. § 102(a) as anticipated by NowThis.
23
9
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013