Appeal No. 97-1931
Application 08/364,826
Thus, the comparison technique as broadly recited in claim 5
would have been obvious to the artisan.
With respect to claim 6, appellants argue that Dworkin
does not teach the concept of activating only some of the
warehouses when the orderer knows that certain items cannot be
obtained from all warehouses. Although we again agree with
appellants that Dworkin does not specifically teach this concept,
the argument does not address the obviousness of this limitation.
In our view, the artisan would have recognized the obviousness of
eliminating warehouses from the evaluation which were incapable
of supplying the desired item. To otherwise consider these
warehouses would be a clear waste of time and resources. Claim 7
stands or falls with claim 1 [brief, page 27].
With respect to claim 8, appellants argue that Dworkin
does not teach means for calculating and displaying the total
cost of items ordered from each of the warehouses. Nevertheless,
any purchaser would have expected and would have found it obvious
for the supplier to indicate the total cost of all items ordered
by the purchaser. Such “invoices” are conventional evidence of
retail transactions.
With respect to claim 9, appellants argue that the
essential limitations of claims 1 and 8 are present as well as a
18
Page: Previous 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007