Appeal 2006-2018
Application 09/815,731
1 Salvo 6,341,271 Jan. 22, 2002 (Nov. 13, 1998)
2
3 Beginning with claim 1, Applicant contends that the claimed subject
4 matter would not have been obvious. More specifically, Applicant contends
5 that the reference disclosures cannot properly be combined because the
6 problem of detecting problems in the manufacturing/sales process is not
7 recognized in any of the references. (Br. 7). Applicants add (id.), that:
8 Specifically, the actual steps of “calculating a
9 predicted amount of raw materials for a given level
10 of sales" and then performing the step of "comparing
11 an amount of raw materials sold to a store and the
12 predicted amount of raw materials for the given level
13 of sales of goods" are not disclosed in any of the references.
14
15 With regard to independent claim 16, Applicant contends that the claim
16 recites
17 displaying an amount of raw materials sold to a
18 store on a same page or screen as a recipe-predicted
19 forecast for the raw material based on the amount
20 of the goods sold by the store, to thereby permit a
21 comparison and determination of variance due to
22 errors or loss; and determining a percentage of cost
23 of the good attributable to the raw material.
24 (Br. 8).
25
26 It is argued (Br. 8) that these references do not even recognize the
27 problem being addressed by the present claims, so, there could hardly be
28 motivation to fix such a problem.
29 The Examiner contends that it would have been obvious to adjust the
30 supply of raw materials in Hafner in view of the teachings and suggestions
31 of Yamamoto, and that it would have been obvious to compare the amount
3
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013