Appeal 2007-0610
Application 09/766,357
Cornuejols. The problem of finding the optimum path from start to finish
through the network is a problem Kent is seeking to solve with an
optimization program. And this is precisely the type of problem which
Cornuejols’ network optimization models would be useful in solving.
Accordingly, there is a reasonable expectation that applying Cornuejols’
network optimization models in the context of Kent’s customizing method
would yield an optimized layout consistent with customer’s preferences
“quickly” and “intuitive[ly]” (Answer 4; Cornuejols, 11.1).
Accordingly, Appellant has not shown that the Examiner’s reasoning
in combining the references to arrive at the claimed invention is flawed or
faulty.
We find therefore that the Examiner has shown that the references
disclose each step of the claim and its limitations and provided reasoning
with rational underpinning to combine the references to arrive at the claimed
invention.
E. Conclusion of Law
On the record before us, Appellant has failed to show that the
Examiner erred in rejecting claims 1, 8-10, 17-19, 26, and 27 over the prior
art.
The rejection of claims 2, 11, and 20 under 35 U.S.C. §103(a) as being
unpatentable over Kent in view of Cornuejols and further in view of Mohr.
Because Appellant argues claims 2, 11, and 20 as a group, pursuant to
the rules, the Board selects representative claim 2 to decide the appeal with
15
Page: Previous 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013