Appeal No. 2006-2346
Application No. 09/931,358
information as discussed in appellant’s specification, we do however find that such
information is not functionally related to the claimed method. 2
Claim 1 recites in step e) “providing to said at least one of said customers product
information regarding said at least one consumer product through the use of said
interface, wherein said product information provided is customized on the basis of said
customer information accessed in step (d), and 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.” Thus, limitation e) of claim 1 recites three
types of information. The first type of information (product information) is provided to
the customer, assumedly in response to the customer’s indication to purchase a selected
product in step c), and the information is also customized on the basis of information
recited in the prior step d). Step d) recites another, second type of information (customer
information), which is stored in a database. Further, limitation e) recites that some of the
first information (product information) comprises a third type of information “customer
sales projection information calculated with respect to said at least one customer.” We
hold that the titles for the different types of information, i.e. “customer” and “consumer
sales projection” do not import functionality to the data. We hold that claim 1 recites
three types of information which are related. The second type of information (customer
information) is used to customize the first type of information (product information) and
that the third type of information (customer sales projection) is part of the first type of
information (product information). We note that there is no claimed method step of
calculating, or limitation reciting how the calculation is performed, rather the claim
recites that the information (projected consumer sales) is calculated with respect to one of
the customers. Thus, we do not find that type of information “consumer sales projection”
2 Our reviewing court has stated that “[w]here the printed matter is not functionally
related to the substrate, the printed matter will not distinguish the invention from the
prior art in terms of patentability.” In Re Nagi 367 F.3d 1336, 1339, 70 USPQ2d 1862,
1864 (Fed. Cir. 2004), citing In Re Gulack 703 F.2d 1381, 217 USPQ 401 (Fed. Cir.
1983).
6
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007