Appeal No. 2006-2346
Application No. 09/931,358
the basis of both customer information and promotional activity regarding the
product. The Final Action simply dismisses the claim limitations as
"nonfunctional descriptive material" while arriving at the summary conclusion
that substitution in Peterson et al. of any particular type of information would be
obvious. This showing is well short of the requirements showing how the
particular relationships among the parties claimed are suggested in Peterson et al.
The examiner responds on page 18 of the answer that the features argued by
appellant are not present in the claims.
We disagree with the examiner. Claim 14 is dependent upon claim 1 and recites
“wherein said sales projection information is customized on the basis of planned
promotional activities with respect to said at least one consumer product.” As discussed
supra, we consider the title “sales projection information” imparts no functionality in
claim 1. Nonetheless claim 14 further recites that this information is further customized
by “planned promotional activities.” As discussed supra Peterson teaches data that is
customized based upon customer information, but we find no disclosure in Peterson
which teaches or makes obvious performing a second customization of the data.
Accordingly, we will not sustain the examiner’s rejections of claim 14.
8
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007