Appeal Number: 2006-2190
Application Number: 09/867,068
Thus, the subject matter set forth in claim 1 is described by the combination of Roddy and
Yang. We note that Yang provides the motivation to apply its teachings to Roddy at paragraph
0006, such motivation being the need to improve inventory planning and management
techniques to the supply chains of repair facilities such as that in Roddy.
Therefore, we find the appellant's arguments to be unpersuasive. Accordingly, we sustain the
examiner's rejection of claims 1 through 15 rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as obvious over
Roddy in view of Yang.
DENOMINATION AS NEW GROUND OF REJECTION UNDER 37 C.F.R. § 41.50(b)
As we noted above, the examiner has applied Roddy to all of the claim limitations without
relying on Yang, even though claim 1 is rejected over the combination of Roddy in view of
Yang. The appellant recognized that the examiner did not rely on Yang in applying the art to
claim 1 and did not address Yang in the brief. We have relied upon the teachings of Yang to
sustain the examiner’s rejection, to which the appellant has not had an opportunity to respond.
Accordingly, we denominate this rejection as a new ground of rejection under 37 C.F.R.
§ 41.50(b).
CONCLUSION
To summarize,
• The rejection of claims 1 through 15 rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as obvious over
Roddy in view of Yang is sustained.
• The rejection of claims 1 through 15 rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as obvious over
Roddy in view of Yang is further denominated as a new ground of rejection under
37 C.F.R. § 41.50(b).
This decision contains a new ground of rejection pursuant to 37 C.F.R. § 41.50(b) (effective
September 13, 2004, 69 Fed. Reg. 49960 (August 12, 2004), 1286 Off. Gaz. Pat. Office 21
(September 7, 2004)). 37 C.F.R. § 41.50(b) provides “[a] new ground of rejection pursuant to
this paragraph shall not be considered final for judicial review.”
5
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007