Appeal No. 2005-1644
Application 09/400,583
generate spatial relationships and the examiner has not explained
why he considers the generating spatial relationships by data
mining limitations to be met. Nevertheless, we find that Hughes
does employ data mining to determine spatial relationships to the
extent disclosed and claimed.
Hughes discloses determining relative placement of products
within the retail space, e.g., by using the Intelligent Location
System and 3DPOS system to determine the positioning coordinates
of the fixtures which store the products (col. 17, line 66, to
col. 18, line 14; Fig. 32 showing placement of fixtures and
Fig. 33 showing which products are in which fixtures). This is
the same method as used by appellants (spec. at 32, lines 5-16).
Claim 39's recitation that "generating spacial relationships
using data mining techniques, wherein the spatial relationships
include relative placement of products within the retail space"
is considered to lack written description and to be
misdescriptive because determining relative placement of products
is not disclosed to be done using data mining. This is part of
the confusion in the rejection. Nevertheless, in case we are
wrong about our claim interpretation, we consider the limitation
of "generating spacial relationships using data mining
techniques, wherein the spatial relationships include relative
placement of products within the retail space" to be met because
Hughes uses the same technique disclosed by appellants.
- 12 -
Page: Previous 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007