Appeal No. 2007-0395 Page 11
Application No. 09/789,678
1 the difference between selling a good at an in-store price and selling
2 the same good to a customer at a lower on-line price. But Walker
3 goes further.
4 … [S]ince the retailers will subsequently be reimbursed
5 or otherwise made whole under contract with the manufacturer,
6 they are motivated to provide quality sales and service support
7 to the customer.
8
9 Col. 12, lines 7-10 (emphasis added). The primary function of the
10 retailer’s receipt of funds, under the Walker reimbursing scheme, is to
11 cover its losses from selling goods at a lower on-line price. But, as
12 the passage above indicates, it also functions to provide quality
13 customer service. One of ordinary skill in the art practicing the
14 Walker method would expect funds to be transmitted from
15 manufacturer (i.e., the supplier) to local retailer and the local retailer
16 to provide quality customer service as a result.
17
18 Teachings Away
19 Appellant contends that the examiner has not established a prima facie
20 case of obviousness over the prior art because the prior art teaches away
21 from the claimed invention. FF 17.
22 Appellant argues that Walker teaches away from the claimed
23 invention because the “subject invention attempts to separate out the pricing,
24 distribution, and sale of the goods from the servicing of the customer.”
25 (Brief, p. 12). However, Appellant’s argument is not commensurate in
26 scope with what is claimed because there is nothing in the claims about
Page: Previous 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013