Appeal 2007-1867
Application 09/864,113
1 different one. If a person of ordinary skill in the art can implement a predictable
2 variation, § 103 likely bars its patentability.” Id. at 1740, 82 USPQ2d at 1396.
3 “For the same reason, if a technique has been used to improve one device,
4 and a person of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that it would improve
5 similar devices in the same way, using the technique is obvious unless its actual
6 application is beyond his or her skill.” Id.
7 “Under the correct analysis, any need or problem known in the field of
8 endeavor at the time of invention and addressed by the patent can provide a reason
9 for combining the elements in the manner claimed.” Id. at 1742, 82 USPQ2d at
10 1397.
11
12 ANALYSIS
13 Claims 1, 3, 4, 8-10, 12, 13, 17-19, 21, 22, 26, and 27 rejected under 35 U.S.C. §
14 102(b) as anticipated by Odigo.com as evidenced by Surfing and Odigo.com web
15 pages.
16 The Appellants argue these claims as a group.
17 Accordingly, we select claim 1 as representative of the group. 37 C.F.R.
18 § 41.37(c(1)(vii) (2006).
19 The Examiner found that
20 Odigo teaches a method and system for providing enhanced
21 online shopping experiences to online shoppers for automatic
22 association of two or more online shoppers, said method
23 comprising the steps of: searching a list of concurrently online
24 shoppers according to a set of search criteria, said shoppers
9
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013