Appeal No. 2006-1229
Application No. 09/800,690
To respond to this argument, we must ascertain the scope of the term “inventory” as
claimed. We note that the only actual claim elements in claim 1 referring to inventory
are:
• determining whether inventory for said product satisfies said
order;
• notifying said user system if said inventory for said product
does not satisfy said order;
• receiving a back order request from said user system to back
order said product if said inventory for said product does not
satisfy said order;
• acquiring said amount and updating said inventory;
We note that the first instance of “inventory” thus claimed relates to all inventory that
is considered for satisfying the demand for said product. The remaining instances of
the term “inventory” are consistent with this construction and provide no further
narrowing of its scope. This is the type of inventory that is updated by Ahluwalia [See
col. 11 lines 15-18]. We further note that Ahluwalia provides an inventory view related
just to the back ordered items that are custom ordered.
[T]he customer is able to make a purchase on a product or vehicle
that he/she desires and track the status of the vehicle when it is custom
ordered and manufactured. [See col. 31 lines 59-65].
The Appellants next argue that the time limit referenced by Furphy is directed to
resolving discrepancies noted in electronic documents shared between two parties and
the time period is not placed on a back order. [See Brief at p. 13].
6
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007