Appeal No. 2007-1110 Page 14
Application No. 09/832,603
B. Findings of Fact
The record supports the following findings of fact (FF) by a preponderance
of the evidence.
1. We incorporate herein the facts under the Findings of Fact section for the
rejection of claims 1, 8, and 13-20 above and add the following facts.
2. Appellants argued that “Dudle is concerned about accurately predicting
Buyer Cost, not Supplier Cost.” Appeal Br. 32. “Dudle sets forth a Buyer Cost
estimating system that estimates costs for business supplies such as forms or labels,
and does not teach or suggest obtaining the lowest cost potential.” Appeal Br. 33.
3. The term “supplier” is nowhere mentioned in claim 2.
C. Principles of Law
We incorporate herein the principles of law under the Principles of Law
section for the rejection of claims 1, 8, and 13-20 above.
D. Analysis
Appellants’ arguments are unpersuasive in showing error in the Examiner’s
findings. Unlike claim 1 where the term “supplier” is at least mentioned, albeit in
the context of the steps of negotiating and not in calculating the lowest cost
potential, claim 2 makes no mention of a “supplier” at all. Accordingly, the
argument (FF 2) that the claimed invention distinguishes over the prior art because
it is concerned about accurately predicting buyer cost and not supplier cost is not
commensurate in scope with what is claimed. The argument that 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