Appeal No. 2007-1110 Page 7
Application No. 09/832,603
• “By eliminating supplier profit, and util izing lowest cost potential, a
Buyer is able to identify and discuss areas for improved Supplier Cost …
with a Supplier to reduce the Supplier Cost and ultimately reduce the Buyer
Cost, rather than dealing with a Supplier quote that hides the Supplier Cost
and Supplier Profit” (Appeal Br. 30);
• “Horie and Burns … accurately estimate Buyer Costs, without
eli ating the hidden profit and Supplier Cost issues from the equatiomin n”
(Appeal Br. 30);
• “Being acc urate at determining the actual costs is unrelated to
determining the lowest cost potential” (Appeal Br. 30); and,
• “Because an Oughta Cost, or ought-to-be-cost, is a valu e that is not an
am a Supplier for an item because noount that one would actually pay
Supplier Profit is included, and because Burns and Horie both estimate the
actual Buyer Cost including the Supplier Profit, Burns and Horie do not
teach or suggest obtaining an ought-to-be cost nor the lowest cost potential”
Appeal Br. 30).
16. Appellants made similar arguments in the Reply Brief.
C. Principles of Law
Claim construction
1. “The Patent an d Trademark Office (“PTO”) determines the scope of claims
in patent applications not solely on the basis of the claim language, but upon giving
claims their broadest reasonable construction ‘in light of the specification as it
would be interpreted by one of ordinary skill in the art.’ In re Am. Acad. of Sci.
Tech. Ctr., 367 F.3d 1359, 1364 [70 USPQ2d 1827, 1830] (Fed. Cir. 2004).”
Phillips v. AWH Corp., 415 F.3d 1303, 1316, 75 USPQ2d 1321, 1329 (Fed. Ci r.
2005).
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013