Appeal No. 2006-0329
Application 09/839,037
that in such a facility, customers and suppliers constantly move
material out (col. 1 lines 31-39) of the facility and are often the
corporate alter egos of each other. That is, within such a
facility, the supplier and customer can be under the same corporate
scheme, e.g. a division of the facility corporation can be its
client.” See id. Column 1, lines 31-39 relied upon by the examiner
discloses that Muhme’s invention is a system and method for
authorizing the removal of an item from a facility by associating
the item with an authorized person, container or both. Even if, as
argued by the examiner, a supplier and a customer can be part of the
same company, the examiner does not explain how Muhme would have
fairly suggested, to one of ordinary skill in the art, a processor
configured to selectively communicate with a customer client and a
supplier client.
In response to the appellants’ argument that Muhme and Cusack
do not disclose or suggest receiving secure area part reception
information from a customer client via a computer network (brief,
page 10) the examiner argues, in reliance upon General Electric Co.
v. Wabash Appliance Corp., 304 U.S. 364, 37 USPQ 466 (1938), that
the appellants’ claim requirement that a processor is configured to
selectively communicate with a customer client and a supplier client
via a computer network must be taken with the smallest regard
5
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007