Ex Parte Scheer - Page 4



                   Appeal No. 2006-1854                                                                                            
                   Application No. 09/867,174                                                                                      

                   Further, on pages 6 and 7 of the brief, appellant argues that Landvater discloses a system                      
                   to forecast replenishment needs at specific locations, i.e., determine the quantity of items                    
                   to be shipped to a plurality of locations.  On page 7 of the brief, appellant asserts that                      
                   Landvater “is simply silent as to any method for constructing or selecting a plan to move                       
                   the forecast amount of items at the forecast time to each of the retail stores.”  As such,                      
                   appellant concludes that Landvater fails to suggest the desirability of constructing a                          
                   plurality of alternative fulfillment plans for each of a plurality if geographic locations                      
                   within the supply chain as claimed.    Appellant asserts, on page 8 of the brief, that if                       
                   Altendahl and Landvater were combined, Landvater’s teaching would provide the                                   
                   destinations for the packages to be shipped and Altendahl‘s teaching would provide a                            
                   system of selecting the route to the to the destinations.  Appellant asserts, on page 9 of                      
                   the brief, that this would not be the claimed system “in which the geographic location in                       
                   which an item that is the subject of the order is to be positioned is not known until after                     
                   the instructions evaluate each of the construed alternative fulfillment plans for each of a                     
                   plurality of geographic locations within a supply chain against a predetermined criteria.”                      
                   (emphasis original).                                                                                            
                          The examiner’s response to appellant’s arguments is on pages 7 through 14 of the                         
                   answer.  On pages 7 and 8 of the answer, the examiner finds that Altendahl teaches all of                       
                   the limitations of claim 11 “except that [a] plurality of geographical destinations are                         
                   considered instead of one.”  (emphasis original) The examiner finds that Altendahl                              
                   suggests that fulfillment plans are constructed for plural parcels which could be destined                      
                   for different addresses. On pages 8 and 9 of the answer, the examiner finds that                                
                   Landvater teaches moving an item or items to replenish inventories in a plurality of stores                     
                   in a supply chain.  Based upon these findings the examiner states, on page 9 of the                             
                   answer that:                                                                                                    







                                                                4                                                                  



Page:  Previous  1  2  3  4  5  6  7  8  Next 

Last modified: November 3, 2007