Appeal No. 97-1931
Application 08/364,826
With respect to claims 13-15, appellants again argue the
distinction of performing steps automatically in the claims as
compared to manual interaction in Dworkin. The automatic
performance of the claimed steps would have been obvious to the
artisan for reasons discussed above.
With respect to claim 16, appellants repeat the arguments
made with respect to the rejection of claim 5. These arguments
are not persuasive for the same reasons discussed above.
With respect to claim 17, appellants argue that Dworkin
is devoid of any suggestion of revising an allocation of
resources to meet a designated ordering criterion. We agree.
Dworkin’s recognition that items purchased in quantity cost less
per item is not related to the idea of allocating resources to
comply with a designated ordering criterion. Dworkin contains no
suggestion as to why the user would revise the preferred
allocation in order to meet such ordering criterion. Therefore,
we do not sustain the rejection of claim 17.
With respect to claim 18, appellants make the same
arguments as they made with respect to the rejection of claim 6.
These arguments are not persuasive for the same reasons discussed
above.
20
Page: Previous 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007