Appeal No. 2006-2346
Application No. 09/931,358
functionally relates to the claimed method step other than that it is calculated with respect
to the second (customer) information.
We find that Peterson teaches a system where the vendor can inquire about
purchasing an item, and in response to the inquiry the vendor is provided data including
item description, a price quantity etc. See column 28, lines 19 through 26. The vendor
also enters an ID, and this ID is then used to access a database which includes among
other data the vendor’s discount percentage. See column 28, lines 26 through 38. This
discount percentage is used to calculate the price quoted to the vendor. Reading the
teachings of Peterson on the claim limitations discussed supra, we find that information
provided in response to the search meets appellant’s claimed “product information.” We
find that Peterson’s discount rate meets the claimed customer information as it is
information related to a customer from a pre-existing database. Further, we consider
Peterson’s price to meet appellant’s claimed non-functional descriptive information,
“consumer sales projection” as it is part of the product information (response to the item
inquiry) and is calculated based upon the customer information (discount rate).
Accordingly, we find ample evidence to support the examiner’s rejections of claim 1
under Peterson. We note that the examiner discusses the claim interpretation of non-
functional descriptive material only with respect to the rejections based on 35 U.S.C.
§ 103, however it is clear from In Re Nagi 367 F.3d 1336, 70 USPQ2d 1862 (Fed. Cir.
2004) that the principals also apply to anticipation rejections. Accordingly, we sustain
the examiner’s rejection of claim 1 and the claims grouped with claim 1, claims 2
through 9, under both 35 U.S.C. § 102 and 35 U.S.C. § 103.
In regards to claim 14, appellant argues, on page 12 of the brief,
Claim 14 expressly requires that the sales projection information is customized on
the basis of planned promotional activities with respect to the consumer product.
The Final Action takes the primary position that such limitation is inherent by
virtue of the product being on sale. This conclusion is not correct, however. An
item on sale does not necessarily have any planned promotional activity
associated with it - much less inherently have a customized calculation made on
7
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007