Appeal 2007-0223
Application 09/752,090
short term process changes. Thus, Appellants have not shown any error in
the Examiner's rejection. As noted in the discussion of Group 1, since the
suppliers and the buyer have access to the evaluation system databases in
Aycock over a network (col. 9, ll. 13-17; col. 10, ll. 62-67; col. 12, l. 57, to
col. 13, l. 4), the databases can be considered a "shared data repository" in a
"collaboration network environment."
Aycock discloses that the system allows buyers to "respond to
supplier queries regarding issued RFP/RFQ's" (col. 3, ll. 57-58). We agree
with the Examiner that one of ordinary skill in the art would have been
motivated to include "a proposed process change" (claim 50) to the
RFP/RFQ, where the change could be "one of short-term process change,
long-term process change, and off-specification change" (claim 51) in view
of the unchallenged Official Notice that proposed process changes by
suppliers were well known. That is, we agree that it was well known that
suppliers would have many suggestions for proposed changes in an
RFP/RFQ, e.g., to clarify the RFP/RFQ or to change the requirements so that
their parts or technologies would qualify, and that one of ordinary skill in the
art would have appreciated that the "supplier queries regarding issued
RFP/RFQ's" (col. 3, ll. 57-58) could include proposed changes. We
conclude that Appellants have not shown that the Examiner erred in
determining that the combination of Aycock and Gervais discloses or
suggests the limitations of claims 50 and 51. Accordingly, the rejection of
claims 50, 51, 61, 62, 72, and 73 is affirmed.
16
Page: Previous 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013