Appeal 2007-2533
Application 09/972,434
1 insufficient to establish that one having ordinary skill in the art would recognize
2 that Frengut identically discloses the claimed invention.
3 The Appellants have not articulated any difference between Frengut and claim
4 3, but merely allege a difference is to be found (Br. 8:¶ under the heading Claim 3).
5 The Examiner responded that Frengut teaches that the product list filter comprises
6 a plurality of tiers, each tier generating a list of a different subset of products. The
7 Examiner finds that Frengut shows such tiered arrangements in Fig. 1B. (Answer
8 10:First full ¶) Frengut’s Fig. 1B pictorially shows how a different subset of
9 products is generated for elected merchants and special offers within those
10 merchants, thus providing a plurality of product subset tiers (FF 08). Therefore,
11 we find the Appellants’ argument as to claim 3 unpersuasive.
12 Thus, the Appellants have not sustained their burden of showing that the
13 Examiner erred in rejecting claims 1-3, 6-8, 11-13, and 16-18 under 35 U.S.C.
14 § 102(e) as anticipated by Frengut.
15
16 Claims 4, 5, 9, 10, 14, 15, 19, and 20 rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
17 unpatentable over Frengut and Official Notice.
18 The Appellants argue these claims as a group with claim 4 as representative.
19 Accordingly, we select claim 4 as representative of the group. 37 C.F.R.
20 § 41.37(c(1)(vii) (2006).
21 Claim 4 introduces the limitation that the electronic file contains representation
22 criteria comprising product selection criteria or products exclusion criteria, or both,
23 forming a product list filter, wherein the user interface displays to the user a
24 filtered product list comprising a subset of products from a master product list of
13
Page: Previous 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013