Ex Parte Jenkins - Page 5



                Appeal No. 2006-1918                                                                            
                Application No. 10/279,529                                                                      

                shelf management information are used in producing the forecasts. 2  Independent claims         
                13, 17 and 20 contain similar limitations.  We do not find that the combination teaches         
                that both the shelf management information and the assortment information are used in           
                generating forecasts.  Tenma teaches using both shelf management information and                
                assortment information but does not teach or suggest making forecasts (of either type           
                discussed in the claim) based upon the information.  Usrey teaches using item assortment        
                information to make forecasts of profitability but does not teach or suggest how shelf          
                management information is used in making forecasts. Thus, we do not find that the               
                combination of the references teach all of the limitations of the independent claims.           
                Accordingly, we will not sustain the examiner’s rejection of claims 1 and 8 through 15          
                under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Tenma in view of Usrey.                        
                       The examiner rejects, dependent claims 2 through 7, and 16 through 20 under              
                35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Tenma in view of Usrey and Article 5/2000.           
                The examiner has not asserted, nor do we find that the Article 5/2000 teaches or suggests       
                modifying the combination of Tenma and Usrey such that both the shelf management                
                information and the assortment information are used in generating forecasts.                    
                Accordingly, we reverse the examiner’s rejection of claims 2 through 7, and 16 through          
                21 under 35 U.S.C. § 103, for the reasons discussed supra with respect to claims 1, 8           
                through 15.                                                                                     







                                                                                                               
                2 While we do not consider appellant’s asserted interpretation, that claim 1 is limited to a    
                system which produces both “forecasted sales information” and “forecasted supply                
                information,” to be well founded as, claim 1 recites producing “one of” not “both.”             
                Nonetheless as by asserting such a narrow reading of the claim limitation, appellant is         
                estopped from later asserting the broader construction espoused by the examiner, we             
                accept appellant’s asserted claim interpretation.                                               

                                                       5                                                        



Page:  Previous  1  2  3  4  5  6  7  Next 

Last modified: November 3, 2007