Appeal No. 2007-1110 Page 10
Application No. 09/832,603
D. Analysis
“Many of appellant's arguments fail from the outset because, as the solicitor
has pointed out, they are not based on limitations appearing in the claims.” In re
Self, 671 F.2d 1344, 1348, 213 USPQ 1, 5 (CCPA 1982).
We have carefully reviewed Appellants’ arguments. FF 15 and 16. No
argument is based on a limitation that appears in claim 1.
Various alleged distinctions between the claimed invention and what the
references disclose are argued.
One alleged distinction between the claimed invention and what the
references disclose is that the claimed invention seeks to accurately predict
supplier cost instead of, as with the references, buyer cost. However, there is no
limitation in the claim limiting the method to predicting supplier cost. The claimed
method seeks to use a computerized process to determine the lowest cost potential
for aspects of the cost of a component or service. Nowhere in the claim is this
determination defined in terms of supplier cost. The supplier is mentioned only
later in the claim with respect to conducting discussions. However, the claim does
not define the earlier lowest cost potential as an accurate prediction of supplier
cost.
Another alleged distinction is that the claimed invention excludes supplier
profit from the calculation of the lowest cost potential. We see nothing about
profit, or its exclusion, in the claim. Moreover, the phrase “lowest cost potential” is
nowhere defined in the Specification as excluding supplier profit. The broadest
reasonable construction of the claim in light of the Specification as it would be
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013