Appeal 2007-0610
Application 09/766,357
minimizing the distance traveled to clear snow and transport it to a location
from roads in a city (p. 138, “transportation model), and arbitrage
possibilities among foreign currencies (p. 145, “generalized network
problem”).
Differences Between the Prior Art and the Claimed Invention
10. The difference between the prior art and the claimed invention is that
the claimed invention combines the steps of (a) developing models to predict
customer purchases; (b) scoring customers for each predictive model; (c)
determining specific layout areas; and (d) determining where a particular
product can be placed in the layout areas; and (e) using an optimizing model
to customize the layout areas for customers that Kent discloses and the
transportation model, network model, or generalized network model that
Cornuejols discloses.
11. The Examiner found that it would have been obvious to combine
Kent and Cornuejols to reach the claimed invention. “It would have been
obvious to modify the optimization model feature of Kent to include any one
of the transportation model, network model, or generalized network model
taught by Cornuejols to advantageously provide a quick and intuitive
approach to customizing a layout (Cornuejols at § 11.1).” Answer 4.
The level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
12. Neither the Examiner nor Appellant has addressed the level of
ordinary skill in the pertinent art of using optimization models to customize
commercial operations. We will consider Kent and Cornuejols as
representative of the level of ordinary skill in the art. See Okajima v.
Bourdeau, 261 F.3d 1350, 1355, 59 USPQ2d 1795, 1797 (Fed. Cir. 2001)
(“[T]he absence of specific findings on the level of skill in the art does not
8
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013