Appeal No. 2006-1918
Application No. 10/279,529
THE REJECTION AT ISSUE
Claims 1 and 8 through 15 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being
unpatentable over Tenma in view of Usrey. The examiner’s rejection is set forth on pages
3 through 7 of the answer. Claims 2 through 7, and 16 through 21 stand rejected under
35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Tenma in view of Usrey and Article 5/2000.
The examiner’s rejection is set forth on pages 8 through 12 of the answer. Throughout
the opinion we make reference to the briefs and the answer for the respective details
thereof.
OPINION
We have carefully considered the subject matter on appeal, the rejections
advanced by the examiner and the evidence of obviousness relied upon by the examiner
as support for the rejections. We have, likewise, reviewed and taken into consideration,
in reaching our decision, Appellant’s arguments set forth in the briefs along with the
examiner’s rationale in support of the rejections and arguments in rebuttal set forth in the
examiner’s answer.
With full consideration being given to the subject matter on appeal, the
examiner’s rejection and the arguments of appellant and the examiner, for the reasons
stated infra we will not sustain the examiner’s rejections of claims 1 through 21 under
35 U.S.C. § 103.
Appellant argues, on pages 6 and 7 of the brief, that the method of claim 1
includes a system that receives both electronic item assortment information and
electronic item information. The method recites processing this information to produce
one of forecasted sales information and forecasted supply information. On page 7 of the
brief, appellant asserts that Tenma uses existing sales of items associated with a gondola
(self)
3
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007