Appeal No. 2006-2346
Application No. 09/931,358
Further, the examiner finds that Peterson teaches “At least some of the product
information provided to the system (e.g. quantity ordered by the vendor as buyer) is
based upon end user sales projection information (the quantity the vendor as buyer
believes the consumer as end user will eventually purchase” and that this teaching meets
the claim limitation of “wherein at least some of the product information provided
comprises consumer sales projection information calculated with respect to said at least
one of said customers.” As an alternative, on page 16 of the answer, the examiner applies
an obviousness rejection and finds that the limitation of steps of providing product
information recited in claim 1 are not dependent upon the content of the information
provided. On page 17 of the answer, the examiner states:
it is the Examiner's position that "consumer sales projection information" is non
functional descriptive material. At least in claim 1, the "consumer sales projection
information" is not in any way functionally related to the method step. Whether
the information is "consumer sales projection information" or other information.
For this reason, even if the Board reversed the anticipation rejections, the
Examiner urges the Board to affirm the obviousness rejections.
Appellant replies, on page 3 of the reply brief, to the examiner’s finding that the,
number of units purchased by the vendor (customer) is based upon projected sales, by
asserting that the examiner’s rationale, while logical, does not show how Peterson meets
the claim limitation of providing to the customer a customized projection of consumer
sales calculated for the customer. Further, on page 4 of the reply brief, appellant
responds to the examiner’s alternative rationale, that the consumer sales projection
information is non functional descriptive material. Appellant argues that the method of
the claim “among other steps requires a calculation and requires that the results of this
calculation be provided to one [of] the parties necessary for the performance of the
method.” Appellant cites several Federal Circuit Cases in which methods which
involved calculations were drawn to statutory subject matter.
The appellant’s arguments have not convinced us that both of the examiner’s
rationale for rejecting claim 1 are in error. While we are in agreement with appellant that
Peterson does not inherently teach providing to the customer consumer sales projection
5
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007