Appeal No. 2007-1110 Page 13
Application No. 09/832,603
The rejection of claims 2-7 and 9-12 under 35 U.S.C. §103(a) over Burns, Horie,
and Dudle.
Because Appellants argue claims 2-7 and 9-12 as a group, pursuant to the
rules, the Board selects representative claim 2 to decide the appeal with respect to
this rejection, and claims 3-7 and 9-12 will stand or fall with claim 2. 37 C.F.R.
§ 41.37(c)(1)(vii) (2006). Claim 2 reads as follows:
2. In a computerized system, a method of determining what the cost of a part
or service ought to be, the method comprising:
establishing one or more databases that store a plurality costs
distributed among each of a plurality of cost components that are utilized for
producing parts and services, wherein the cost components include one or
more of: design, manufacturing practices, supply chain management
techniques, labor rates, uptimes, and yields;
providing a database interface for the database that allows remote
access by one or more users;
establishing a set of computer screens, including input fields into
which cost components are capable of being inputted either directly or
through menus that display options that are capable of being selected,
wherein the cost components are elements of cost areas such as material,
labor, capital, manufacturing and overhead;
for each cost area, totaling a lowest cost potential for each cost
component, yielding a plurality of subtotals;
totaling each of the plurality of subtotals, yielding a lowest potential
cost that is the ought to be cost of the part or service.
A. Issue
The issue is whether Appellants have shown that the Examiner erred in
rejecting the claims over the cited 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