Appeal No. 97-1931
Application 08/364,826
means when the specification also supports that a plurality of
computers may perform the functions of the first means.
Appellants argue that there is no suggestion in Dworkin
for the vendor computers to incorporate data provided by the
database [brief, page 11]. On the contrary, Dworkin clearly
suggests that the vendor computers should have direct access to
the database so that the suppliers can update their information
as necessary [column 10, lines 50-53].
Appellants argue that subclause (i) of clause (B)
requires that price information be obtained from the same means
which receives the orders. It is submitted that the claim does
not require this relationship despite appellants’ argument.
Claim 1 only requires that price information be obtained at the
same means which creates the order files. The CPU 1 of Dworkin
both receives price information and creates any order file to be
sent to the vendor computers.
Appellants argue that Dworkin does not teach all the
steps being performed automatically as recited in claim 1. As we
noted above, however, the steps of claim 1 are performed in
Dworkin although the creation of an order file is done by manual
selection of the user in Dworkin. Nevertheless, the broad
recitations of performing known steps automatically would have
15
Page: Previous 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007