Appeal 2007-1867
Application 09/864,113
1 ISSUES
2
3 Thus, the issues pertinent to this appeal are
4 • Whether the Appellants have sustained their burden of showing that the
5 Examiner erred in rejecting claims 1, 3, 4, 8-10, 12, 13, 17-19, 21, 22, 26,
6 and 27 under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) as anticipated by Odigo.com as evidenced
7 by Surfing and Odigo.com web pages.
8 • Whether the Appellants have sustained their burden of showing that the
9 Examiner erred in rejecting claims 2, 5, 6, 11, 14, 15, 20, 23, and 24 under
10 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Odigo.com and Tang.
11 • Whether the Appellants have sustained their burden of showing that the
12 Examiner erred in rejecting claims 7, 16, and 25 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
13 unpatentable over Odigo and Kenney.
14 The pertinent issue turns on whether Odigo.com shows disassociated shoppers
15 as in element (1b) of claim 1, supra.
16
17 FACTS PERTINENT TO THE ISSUES
18 The following enumerated Findings of Fact (FF) are believed to be supported
19 by a preponderance of the evidence.
20 Claim Construction
21 01. The Specification does not define the word “disassociated.”
4
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013