Appeal 2006-2018
Application 09/815,731
1 Turning to independent claims 16-18, Applicant's arguments are
2 directed to claim 16. Accordingly, we select claim 16 as representative of
3 the group. As noted by Applicant (Reply Br. 5), claim 16 does not include
4 the comparison step, but rather recites
5 g) displaying an amount of raw materials
6 sold to a store on a same page or screen as a
7 recipe-predicted forecast for the raw materials
8 based on the amount of the goods sold by the store,
9 to thereby permit a comparison and determination
10 of variance due to errors or loss; and materials.
11
12 h) determining a percentage of cost of the
13 goods attributable to the raw materials.
14
15 We note that as we found, supra, with respect to claim 1, the prior art would
16 not have suggested a comparison and determination of variance due to
17 errors or loss. However, the comparison step is not present in claim 16. As
18 broadly drafted, claim 16 recites, inter alia, "to thereby permit a comparison
19 …."
20 From the disclosure of Salvo of determining the amount of inventory
21 used over a period of time, and the disclosure of Yamamoto of adjusting the
22 supply of raw materials based on sampled sales, we find that the references
23 would have suggested, a predicted forecast of raw materials based on the
24 amount of materials used sold. From facts 22 and 26 we find that
25 Yamamoto would have suggested a predicted forecast of raw materials
26 based on sales. We find that the term "recipe" fails to distinguish the claim
27 from the prior art because whatever format was used to create the estimated
28 use would have a recipe or formula for carrying out the estimation.
12
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013