Appeal 2006-2018
Application 09/815,731
1 of raw materials sold to a store with a calculated forecasted amount in view
2 of the teachings of Salvo. (Final Rejection 2-3).
3
4 We affirm.
5
6 ISSUE
7 The issue is whether Applicant has shown that the Examiner erred in
8 rejecting the claims 1-18 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) (2004). The issue turns
9 on whether there is a legally sufficient justification for combining the
10 disclosures of Hafner, Yamamoto and Salvo, and if combined, whether the
11 combined teachings of the references would have suggested the language of
12 claims 1-18 to and artisan. Specifically, the issue is:
13 whether the prior art teachings would have been combined by an artisan to
14 meet the claim language of:
15 g) calculating a predicted amount of raw materials
16 for a given level of sales of goods sold by the store;
17 and h) comparing an amount of raw materials sold
18 to a store and the predicted amount of raw materials
19 for the given level of sales of goods, to thereby
20 provide an indication of a level of discrepancy,
21 as recited in claim 1;
22
23 or g) displaying an amount of raw materials sold to a
24 store on a same page or screen as a recipe-predicted
25 forecast for the raw materials based on the amount of
26 the goods sold by the store, to thereby permit a
27 comparison and determination of variance due to errors
28 or loss, as recited in independent claim 16.
29
30
31
4
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013