Appeal 2006-2018
Application 09/815,731
1 Turning to Salvo, we find from fact 24 that control unit 114
2 determines the amount of inventory used over time, can estimate future use,
3 and can determine if an inventory order is necessary. The determining of the
4 remaining inventory in the storage unit, or silo, represents determining what
5 products have been sold. The estimating of future use involves estimating
6 what materials will be needed in the future, and the determining of an
7 inventory order is needed teaches ordering more materials for the silo.
8 Thus, we find that the reference to Salvo, combined with the descriptions of
9 Hafner and Yamamoto would have suggested calculating a predetermined
10 amount of raw materials for a given level of sales by the store, as advanced
11 by the Examiner.
12 As noted, supra, we find in Yamamoto a suggestion of comparing an
13 amount of raw materials sold to a store with the predicted amount of raw
14 materials for the given level of sales of goods, to thereby provide an
15 indication of a level of discrepancy. Because the inventory control system
16 of Yamamoto provides an indication of a level of discrepancy, we agree with
17 the Examiner that an artisan would have arrived at the claimed comparison
18 step. Thus, we find that the Examiner is correct in asserting that combining
19 the disclosures of the prior art would result in the invention of claim 1. On
20 the record before us, it follows that in this case that Applicants have failed to
21 show error on the part of the Examiner in rejecting claim 1 under § 103(a).
22 Since independent claims 6 and 11 contain similar language, the rejection of
23 claims 1, 6, and 11, and claims 2-5, 7-10, and 12-15, which depend
24 therefrom, is sustained.
11
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013