Appeal No. 2004-1224
Application No. 09/532,379
regarding the “context” of a 178-page chapter (i.e., Salvendy)
discloses or suggests any claim limitations. The examiner has
failed to meet the initial burden of proof, i.e., the examiner
has not specifically established how the concept of “total
quality control” discloses or suggests the first two claimed
steps, nor why “Outputs to internal and external customers” as
recited in Figure 85.6 discloses or suggests gathering internal
and external organizational data.
Even assuming arguendo that these first two steps of claim 1
on appeal were disclosed or suggested by Salvendy, the examiner
has not established that this reference discloses or suggests the
“matching” step C in claim 1 (see the Brief, pages 7-8). The
examiner’s only finding regarding this claimed step is that this
step is “disclosed by ‘total quality control’ at Salvandy [sic,
Salvendy] page 2226, and Figure 85.6 ‘The Total Quality Control
Conceptual Model’ at page 227 [sic, 2227].” Answer, page 8. The
term “matching,” as it has been construed above, requires
comparing two sets of elements or data to determine a list of the
common elements or data. The examiner has failed to explain how
the concept of “total quality control” discloses or suggests this
step of matching, nor how Figure 85.6 discloses or suggests this
term as construed above. The examiner’s findings regarding the
7
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007