Appeal No. 2006-2346
Application No. 09/931,358
such purchaser intends to re-sell such goods to another entity, person, or groups of
persons in the course of such customer’s business”; and the term “consumer” means:
“any purchaser of goods where such purchaser will be the end user of such goods, or is
not otherwise engaged in business or practice of sale of such goods to others.” The
examiner further provides table 1, on page 15 of the answer, which equates the parties in
Peterson with the parties claimed. Appellant concedes that as table 1 shows, Peterson
teaches parties analogous to the parties claimed. Thus, the issue as to whether Peterson
teaches the parties as recited in the claims is not before us as both examiner and appellant
are in agreement.
Appellant argues, on page 10 of the brief, that Peterson does not teach or suggest
that product information is customized based on customer information and that the
information provided comprises consumer sales projections calculated with respect to the
customer. Appellant states, on page 10 of the brief, that while Peterson teaches that
vendors (admitted to be analogous to claimed customers) communicate information about
inventory “[t]here is no indication that the information about the product itself provided
to the vendor is customized on the basis of vendor information (or customer
information).” (Emphasis original) Further, appellant asserts, on page 11 of the brief,
Peterson provides no indication that the information comprises sales projection
information as required by claim 1. Additionally, on page 11 of the brief, appellant
argues that the examiner’s rejection has essentially “ignored the limitation of calculation,
of consumer sales projection information calculated with respect to the customer.”
Regarding the examiner’s obviousness rejection based upon Peterson, appellant argues,
on page 12 of the brief, that with the exception of claim 14, the arguments regarding the
anticipation rejection also apply to the obviousness rejections.
In response, the examiner states, on page 16 of the answer, that table 2 of the
appendix, establishes anticipation. In table 2 of the appendix, on pages 19 and 20 of the
answer, the examiner finds that Peterson teaches price information customized based on
the consumer ID which meets the claim 1 limitation of “wherein said product information
provided is customized on the basis of said customer information accessed in step (d).’
4
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007