Appeal No. 2003-0768
Application No. 09/396,287
luggage to be tracked, produced from the first list, be to a user of such a system?
Where is the teaching, in Kovarik, of selecting materials “to produce a manifest with
manifested materials for delivery to one or more of a plurality of delivery locations by
one of said plurality of transports,” as set forth in broader instant claim 22 (which does
not require the second list)? The examiner has not specifically said. The closest the
examiner comes to reaching this claimed limitation is to point to column 11, lines 24-25,
of Kovarik, referring to “AddItem-Adds a TrackedItem 100 to the list of tracked items
currently at the location.” This refers to a “list,” to be sure, but how does this relate to a
stored list of materials, the “materials being selectable to produce a manifest with
manifested materials for delivery to one or more of a plurality of delivery locations by
one of said plurality of transports,” as claimed? The examiner does not explain.
In fact, Kovarik is directed to a tracking system which keeps track of materials
flowing through a process, e.g., tracking luggage at an airport. It is not clear that
Kovarik deals with the supply and delivery of items in the sense of the instant invention,
i.e., Kovarik does not appear to be directed to a logistics method for a plurality of
transports, as claimed. The mere tracking of an item, or a material, through a system is
not the same as providing a logistics system for coordinating delivery of a wide range of
materials produced by different suppliers going to different base staging areas for final
6
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007