Appeal 2006-3387
Application 09/385,489
for the reasons stated supra. Appellants further contend that claim 90 is not
obvious because Jones and Schultz do not disclose: providing access to the
independent system operator database by the retailer and manufacturer prior to the
start of the trade promotion by the retailer to independently verify the terms of the
trade promotion and determine if the retailer changed the terms; enabling the
retailer, before the start of the trade promotion, to change at least one of the stored
terms of the promotion and capturing and storing the changed terms; and providing
access after the start of the trade promotion to allow the retailer and manufacturer
to determine at least a portion of the amount of money the manufacturer will owe
the retailer (Br. 66-67).
As we found supra for claim 30, Jones discloses sending a report of the
incremental sale volume increases to both the retailer and the manufacturer only
after each event to support the settlement process (Jones, col. 12, ll. 20-25). The
Examiner has not pointed to, nor do we find, any disclosure in Jones that its audit
system is accessible independently to the retailer and the manufacturer to verify the
terms of the trade promotion prior to the start of the trade promotion by the retailer,
or accessible to the retailer to change the terms, or accessible to both parties to see
the accruing amount of money owed by the manufacturer during the trade
promotion, as required by claim 90. Schultz does not appear to cure this
deficiency in Jones. As such, we do not find sufficient teaching, suggestion, or
motivation in Jones and Schultz that would have led one having ordinary skill in
the art at the time of the invention to the invention as recited in claim 90. Claims
91-94 depend from and further limit claim 90, and as such, are also not obvious in
30
Page: Previous 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013