Appeal No. 2006-1854
Application No. 09/867,174
The examiner rejected claim 13 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over
Altendahl in view of Landvater and Dietrich. Claim 13 depends upon claim 11. The
examiner has not asserted nor do we find that Dietrich teaches or suggests modifying
Altendahl or Landvater to construct alternative fulfillment plans to ship the ordered item
to different locations and then select the location based upon an evaluation of the
fulfillment plan. Accordingly, we will not sustain the examiner’s rejection of claim 13
for the reasons discussed supra with respect to claim 11.
Accordingly, we will not sustain the examiner’s rejection of claims 11 through
20, under 35 U.S.C. § 103. The decision of the examiner is reversed.
REVERSED
TERRY J. OWENS )
Administrative Patent Judge )
)
)
) BOARD OF PATENT
ROBERT E. NAPPI ) APPEALS AND
Administrative Patent Judge ) INTERFERENCES
)
)
)
ANTON W. FETTING )
Administrative Patent Judge )
REN/vsh
7
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007