Appeal 2007-0223
Application 09/752,090
(col. 10, l. 25), which corresponds to the claimed source of a "manufacturing
representative." The supplier at supplier site 74 provides input and
corresponds to the claimed source of a "supplier." As to Appellants'
arguments that the "source of supplier information disclosed in Aycock is, at
best, a source; it is not a collaborative source" (Br. 12), the supplier in
Aycock has access to the evaluation databases and uploads the RFP/RFQ
responses directly to the supplier evaluation system (col. 9, ll. 13-21; col. 10,
l. 62, to col. 11, l. 9). Because the manufacturing representative and the
supplier can work from the same documents over a network (albeit the
supplier in a more limited manner), this appears to meet the claim limitations
of a "collaborative network environment" and a "collaborative source."
Appellants have not specifically defined or argued what is meant by
"collaborative" or said how much collaboration is actually required; thus,
even a small amount of collaboration is all that is required to meet the broad
claim language. We will not read implied limitations into the word
"collaborative." Finally, since the suppliers and the buyer have access to the
evaluation system databases (col. 9, ll. 13-17; col. 10, ll. 62-67; col. 12,
l. 57, to col. 13, l. 4), the databases can be considered a "shared data
repository" for the collaboration system.
For these reasons, we conclude that Appellants have not shown that
the Examiner erred in finding that Aycock discloses "said collaborative
source including a supplier, a manufacturing representative, and . . . an
electronic catalog."
8
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013