Appeal No. 2007-1110 Page 6
Application No. 09/832,603
15. Appellants argued that
• “lowest cost potential does not include profit” (Appeal Br. 25);
• “Burns is concerned about accurately predicting Buyer Cost, not
Supplier Cost (Appeal Br. 25);
• Examples in Burns show “a method of obtaining costs for a
construction project … [which] will not yield a lowest cost potential, as one
of skill in the art would recognize from the function being performed”
(Appeal Br. 27);
• “Burns includes numerous additional examples of similar methods of
estimating that do not result in identifying lowest-cost potential” (Appeal Br.
28);
• “Burns is concerned with construction projects, not individual
components or services” (Appeal Br. 28);
• “the present invention would most certainly come up with a lowest
cost potential that would be significantly lower than an application of actual
cost of Burns’ teachings” (Appeal Br. 28);
• “Horie teaches a costing method that utilizes a variety of calculations
including weighed averaging, correcting, and estimating to
estimate/calculate costs, which calculations and factors are incapable of
yielding a lowest potential cost” (Appeal Br. 29);
• “Horie is concerned about accurately predicting Buyer Cost, not
Supplier Cost” (Appeal Br. 29);
• “Horie sets forth a Buyer Cost estimating system that utilizes weighed
averages and taking of ratios, which … do not result in the lowest cost
potential” (Appeal Br. 29);
• “Horie, like Burns, teaches a system that attempts to estimate actual
Buyer Costs, including Supplier profits, and not lowest cost potential for
Supplier Costs” (Appeal Br. 29);
• Both Burns and Horie teach tools utilized for budgeting, not tools that
can be utilized to negotiate” (Appeal Br. 29);
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013