Appeal No. 2001-0671
Application No. 09/129,088
It is our view that the examiner has not established a prima facie case of
obviousness with regard to the instant claimed subject matter.
Even assuming, arguendo, that the “constraints” disclosed by Masch could be
considered the preselected constraints of the instant claims, the “preselected
constraints” of the instant claimed invention is imposed on a transport means and it is
done so “dependent on conditions at the source and the receiving location.” We find no
indication in either Lu or Masch of imposing any constraints on a “transport” means and
wherein such imposition is “dependent on conditions at the source and the receiving
location.”
Moreover, we find nothing in the applied references suggesting usage of
commodities “at a certain rate” or a “means for computing rate of delivery of the
commodities at the receiving station,” as claimed.
The examiner says that it would have been obvious that Lu’s “dynamic
programming procedures . . . warehouse demand and customer demand matrices to
determine interim demand solutions” [answer, page 6, emphasis original] would have
been selected in accordance with “preselecting constraints” and “rate of delivery of
commodities” because “demand” would have been interpreted by skilled artisans as a
required “constraint.” Further, “dynamic programming procedures...” would have been
4
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007