Appeal No. 2007-1110 Page 10 Application No. 09/832,603 D. Analysis “Many of appellant's arguments fail from the outset because, as the solicitor has pointed out, they are not based on limitations appearing in the claims.” In re Self, 671 F.2d 1344, 1348, 213 USPQ 1, 5 (CCPA 1982). We have carefully reviewed Appellants’ arguments. FF 15 and 16. No argument is based on a limitation that appears in claim 1. Various alleged distinctions between the claimed invention and what the references disclose are argued. One alleged distinction between the claimed invention and what the references disclose is that the claimed invention seeks to accurately predict supplier cost instead of, as with the references, buyer cost. However, there is no limitation in the claim limiting the method to predicting supplier cost. The claimed method seeks to use a computerized process to determine the lowest cost potential for aspects of the cost of a component or service. Nowhere in the claim is this determination defined in terms of supplier cost. The supplier is mentioned only later in the claim with respect to conducting discussions. However, the claim does not define the earlier lowest cost potential as an accurate prediction of supplier cost. Another alleged distinction is that the claimed invention excludes supplier profit from the calculation of the lowest cost potential. We see nothing about profit, or its exclusion, in the claim. Moreover, the phrase “lowest cost potential” is nowhere defined in the Specification as excluding supplier profit. The broadest reasonable construction of the claim in light of the Specification as it would bePage: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013