Appeal No. 2007-1110 Page 3
Application No. 09/832,603
using a computerized process that includes databases from which
aspects of the cost are capable of being determined, provided lowest cost
potential design, lowest cost potential manufacturing practices, lowest cost
potential supply chain management techniques, lowest cost potential labor
rates, lowest cost potential uptimes and lowest cost potential yields are
utilized;
determining, by the computerized process, a lowest potential cost for
each of a plurality of aspects of the cost and totaling the lowest potential cost
for each of a plurality of aspects, yielding the ought to be cost;
generating reports from said computerized process that include details
of each aspect of the cost;
providing the reports to prospective suppliers of the component or
service;
conducting discussions, with the prospective suppliers of the
component or service, in an effort to gain concurrence on the fact basis of
what the cost of the component, service or process ought to be;
conducting fact based discussions, with prospective suppliers of the
component or service with whom concurrence on the cost has been reached,
in an effort to reach an agreement on a price for the component, service or
process based on the ought to be cost of the component, service or process.
A. Issue
The issue is whether Appellants have shown that the Examiner erred in
rejecting the claims over the cited prior art.
B. Findings of Fact
The record supports the following findings of fact (FF) by a preponderance
of the evidence.
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013