Appeal 2006-2018
Application 09/815,731
1 amount of inventory used over time, can estimate future use, and determine
2 if an inventory order is needed. (col. 5, ll. 1-10).
3
4 25. This vendor termination (for unsatisfactory performance) will
5 increase productivity and quality of the manufacturing site 103, since high
6 quality inventory will be properly controlled. (col. 11, ll. 14-17).
7
8
9 PRINCIPLES OF LAW
10 On appeal, Applicant bears the burden of showing that the Examiner
11 has not established a legally sufficient basis for combining the teachings of
12 Lencoski with those of Waechter. Applicant may sustain its burden by
13 showing that where the Examiner relies on a combination of disclosures, the
14 Examiner failed to provide sufficient evidence to show that one having
15 ordinary skill in the art would have done what Applicant did. United States
16 v. Adams, 383 U.S. 39 (1966); In re Kahn, 441 F.3d 977, 987-988, 78
17 USPQ2d 1329, 1336 (Fed. Cir. 2006); DyStar Textilfarben GmbH & Co.
18 Deutschland KG v. C.H. Patrick, Co., 464 F.3d 1356, 1360-1361, 80
19 USPQ2d 1641, 1645 (Fed. Cir. 2006). The mere fact that all the claimed
20 elements or steps appear in the prior art is not per se sufficient to establish
21 that it would have been obvious to combine those elements. United States v.
22 Adams, supra; Smith Industries Medical systems, Inc. v. Vital Signs, Inc.,
23 183 F.3d 1347, 1356, 51 USPQ2d 1415, 1420 (Fed. Cir. 1999).
24
25 ANALYSIS
26 We begin with claim 1. From fact 2 (of Hafner) we find reference to
27 at least one industry including retailers and suppliers. We find from the
28 disclosure of retailers and suppliers, that a retailer or supplier would not be
9
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013