Appeal No. 2007-0395 Page 12
Application No. 09/789,678
1 separating pricing, distribution, and sale of the goods from the servicing of
2 the customer.
3 Appellant also argues that Walker teaches away from the claimed
4 invention because the “subject invention, as claimed, delivers the products to
5 the customers and initiates the transmission of funds to the retailer at the
6 time of the sale.” (Brief, p. 12). However, the steps of delivering goods and
7 initiating transmission of funds to the retailer set forth in the claims have no
8 time requirement. They do not say that the transmission of funds must take
9 place at the time of sale and therefore leaves open the possibility that the
10 retailer receives funds after the goods are delivered.
11 Appellant also argues that Walker teaches away from the claimed
12 invention because the “subject invention determines jurisdiction [of the local
13 retailer] based upon those that are linked [to the supplier] in combination
14 with the location of the customer.” (Brief. p. 12). Appellant’s argument is
15 not commensurate in scope with that which is claimed because the wording
16 of the claims is such that determination of the local retailer having
17 jurisdiction over the purchase is based on a customer’s location alone. While
18 the claims call for a link between local retailer and supplier based on the
19 local retailer’s location (which Walker discloses, see col. 17, lines 13-28),
20 the step of determining jurisdiction over the purchase on the goods does not
21 depend on this link. A local retailer may be linked to a supplier based on its
22 location and yet not have jurisdiction over the purchase.
23 Finally, Appellant argues that “[u]nlike Walker et al., in the subject
24 invention the funds are not compensation for selling the product at the lower
25 price, instead the funds are in exchange for the retailer agreeing to service
Page: Previous 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013