Appeal Number: 2006-1514
Application Number: 09/950,526
The examiner then argues that pantry loading has short as well as long term effects and that
the claims do not specify a time period for measuring effects. The examiner further argues that
Abraham does, contrary to the appellant’s argument, address long term analysis at pp. 266-268.
The examiner concludes that Abraham’s baseline modification must consider the effects of
pantry loading. [See Answer at p. 10-13].
The appellant, in turn, responds that cannibalization refers to situations where consumers
purchase a product from one store in lieu of another store, rebutting the examiner’s argument that
cannibalization is equivalent to pantry loading, and repeats the argument that pantry loading is a
long term effect, and that Abraham explicitly ignores long term effects. [See Reply Brief at p. 2]
We note that much of the arguments between the examiner and the appellant relate to the
meaning of the phrase “pantry loading.” The appellant’s disclosure states that “pantry loading”
is where “consumers take advantage of promotions and essentially stockpile their ‘pantries’ with
a large quantity of a given product for eventual, future consumption.” [See Specification at p.
3].
We decline the invitation to decide whether “pantry loading” is equivalent to
“cannibalization,” because closer inspection of the above extract from Abraham reveals that the
subject of that portion is purchase acceleration, which may in turn cause cannibalization.
Although Abraham does not explicitly define the term “purchase acceleration,” the term’s
meaning is clear on its face, i.e. the acceleration, or quickening in time, of purchase. We note
that this is an equivalent concept to stockpiling for eventual consumption, which is the
appellant’s definition for pantry loading. Now that we have found that Abraham speaks to
pantry loading, the remaining issue is whether it modifies the baseline as a result. We note that
the above recited passage from Abraham answers this question directly by stating that purchase
acceleration “needs to be subtracted from short-term incremental sales to get long-term
incremental volume.” We find that subtracting data from a baseline is a form of modifying the
baseline, and therefore, Abraham does modify its baseline as a result of the effects of pantry
loading. Therefore, we find the appellant's arguments to be unpersuasive.
Accordingly we sustain the examiner's rejection of claims 1 through 8, 10, and 11 rejected
under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) as anticipated by Abraham.
4
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007