Appeal 2007-2533
Application 09/972,434
1 claimed: (i) user interface; (ii) user; (iii) seller or buyer; (iv) selected information
2 from the seller or buyer; (v) electronic file defining a relationship between the user
3 and the seller (Appeal Br. 6:Last ¶ - to top of 7). We find that the Examiner cited
4 specific paragraph numbers to support the findings as to each claim element.
5 We take the Appellants’ contentions to mean that the Examiner did not provide
6 finer levels of analysis within the cited paragraphs, but we find that those
7 paragraphs provide sufficient detail within Frengut on their face to support the
8 Examiner’s findings in the issues before us. In particular, (i) Frengut’s customized
9 web pages correspond with the claimed user interface; (ii) Frengut’s user
10 corresponds with claimed user; (iii) Frengut’s advertiser corresponds with the
11 claimed buyer or seller; (iv) Frengut’s advertisements correspond with claimed
12 selected information from the seller or buyer; and (v) Frengut’s user profile
13 corresponds with the claimed electronic file defining a relationship between the
14 user and the seller (FF09-10).
15 Claim 3
16 The Appellants separately argue claim 3. Claim 3 introduces the limitation that
17 the electronic file of claim 1 contains representation criteria comprising product
18 selection criteria or products exclusion criteria, or both, forming a product list
19 filter, wherein the user interface displays to the user a filtered product list
20 comprising a subset of products from a master product list of the seller [imported
21 from intermediate claim 2] in which the product list filter comprises a plurality of
22 tiers, each tier generating a list of a different subset of products.
23 The Examiner found this limitation in Frengut, paragraphs 26, 29 and 34, and
24 Fig. 3 (Answer 5-6). The Appellants contend that Frengut’s teaching is
12
Page: Previous 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013