Appeal No. 2007-1110 Page 2
Application No. 09/832,603
The invention is directed to a process for doing business comprising
determining what a part ought to cost.
The claims are rejected as follows:
• Claims 1, 8, and 13-20 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. §103(a) over Burns (U.S.
Patent 5,189,606)1 in view of Horie (U.S. Patent 5,546,564).
• Claims 2-7 and 9-12 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. §103(a) in view of Burns,
Horie, and Dudle (U.S. Patent 5,570,291)
We AFFIRM.2
The rejection of claims 1, 8, and 13-20 under 35 U.S.C. §103(a) over Burns and
Horie.
Because Appellants argue claims 1, 8, and 13-20 as a group, pursuant to the
rules, the Board selects representative claim 1 to decide the appeal with respect to
this rejection, and claims 8 and 13-20 will stand or fall with claim 1. 37 C.F.R.
§ 41.37(c)(1)(vii) (2006). Claim 1 reads as follows:
1. A method of doing business in which the cost of a component, service or
process is established by:
1 The Examiner erroneously stated the patent no. for this patent as 5,063,506 in the
Final Rejection mailed July 15, 2005. The error was noted by Appellants on page
24 of the Appeal Brief, however, Appellants also erred in the correct patent no. in
stating the Grounds of Rejection calling it U.S. Patent No. 5,062,102.
2 In reaching our decision we have considered Appellant’s Appeal Brief (“Appeal
Br.,” filed May 5, 2006), the Examiner's Answer (“Answer,” mailed Oct. 4, 2006),
and the Reply Brief (“Reply Br.,” filed Oct. 27, 2006).
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013