Appeal No. 2007-1110 Page 12
Application No. 09/832,603
environmental cost, historical costs, escalation modifiers, among many other
factors that Appellants have singled out as being disclosed in the references to
estimate cost.
Another alleged distinction is that the claimed invention is directed to
components and service and not, as with Burns, construction projects. Again, we
see nothing in the claim that excludes construction projects. There is no indication
in the claim, or anywhere in the Specification, that the terms “component” and
“service” should be given a meaning other than the plain meaning that one of
ordinary skill in the art would give them. In that regard, a component is simply a
part of a whole. Since a construction project can be part of a bigger project, and
often is, the claim encompasses the project Burns is directed to.
Finally, another alleged distinction is that the claimed invention involves
tools to negotiate rather than, as with Burns and Horie, for budgeting. But we do
not see that the tools as broadly described in the claim exclude the tools Burns and
Horie use. A distinction based sole on an intended use is not patentably
consequential.
E. Conclusion of Law
On the record before us, Appellants have failed to show that the Examiner
erred in rejecting the claims over the prior art.
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013