Appeal 2007-0610
Application 09/766,357
where a particular product can be placed in the layout areas; and (e) using an
optimizing model to customize the layout areas for customers.
The Examiner relied upon Cornuejols to show that an optimization
model that is one of a transportation model, network model, or generalized
network model is well known. FF 5. Appellants did not traverse this
finding. FF 7. Accordingly, we find that Cornuejols shows that an
optimization model that is one of a transportation model, network model, or
generalized network model.
Based on the analysis of the scope and content of Kent and
Cornuejols, the facts support the conclusion that Kent shows (a) developing
models to predict customer purchases; (b) scoring customers for each
predictive model; (c) determining specific layout areas; (d) determining
where a particular product can be placed in the layout areas; and (e) using an
optimizing model to customize the layout areas for customers, and that
Cornuejols shows network optimization models such as the transportation
model, network model, or generalized network model.
Accordingly, all of the claimed steps and their limitations are
disclosed in the prior art. Each step claimed performs as one of ordinary
skill in the art would expect it to perform from reading the cited prior art.
Each performs a known function and that function is spelled out in the prior
art. The steps claimed do no more than what one would expect if the steps
described in Kent and Cornuejols were to be combined. “The combination
of familiar elements according to known methods is likely to be obvious
when it does no more than yield predictable results.” KSR Int’l v. Teleflex
Inc., 127 S.Ct. 1727, 1739, 82 USPQ2d 1385, 1395 (2007). In that regard,
12
Page: Previous 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013