Appeal No. 97-1931
Application 08/364,826
With respect to claim 19, appellants argue that there is
no suggestion in Dworkin for treating one warehouse
preferentially as compared to all the other warehouses. We
agree. The specific recitation in claim 19 of creating secondary
warehouse comparison files and searching these files is not
suggested by the broad, general teachings of Dworkin, and is not
something that the general consumer routinely does. Therefore,
we do not sustain the rejection of claim 19. Since claims 20 and
21 depend from claim 19, we also do not sustain the rejection of
these claims.
With respect to claim 22, it stands or falls with claim 1
[brief, page 33], and therefore, the rejection of claim 22 is
sustained for reasons discussed above.
With respect to claim 23, appellants argue that the
recitation that each of more than 100 items be ordered is not
suggested by Dworkin. Although Dworkin can be used for placing
small orders, it is not so limited. As we noted above, the
artisan would have appreciated the obviousness of extending the
teachings of Dworkin to a buyer and seller in a retail business
and wholesale supplier relationship as set forth in appellants’
specification. When this relationship exists, it would have been
21
Page: Previous 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007