Appeal No. 2004-1176 Page 7
Application No. 09/232,751
845 F.2d 981, 986, 6 USPQ2d 1601, 1604 (Fed. Cir. 1988) and In re Johnson, 558 F.2d
1008, 1016, 194 USPQ 187, 194 (CCPA 1977).
The examiner’s rejection of claims 17-19 is grounded in part on the examiner’s
interpretation of “service capacity to service sales” simply as inventory level, an
interpretation which we find unreasonable for the reasons discussed above. It thus
follows that we cannot sustain the examiner’s rejection of claims 17-19 as being
unpatentable over Williams in view of Tso and Teicher.
We have reviewed the additional teachings of Kamakura and Gardenswartz
relied upon in rejecting the remaining dependent claims but find no teaching or
suggestion therein which cures the above-noted deficiency of the combination of
Williams, Tso and Teicher. We therefore also cannot sustain the examiner’s rejections
of claims 5 and 13 as being unpatentable over Williams in view of Tso, Teicher and
Kamakura and claim 16 as being unpatentable over Williams in view of Tso, Teicher
and Gardenswartz.
CONCLUSION
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007