Appeal 2007-2173
Application 09/682,701
ISSUE
The Appellants contend that “neither the Evans nor the Foley references
teach[es] or suggest[s] outputting or otherwise displaying a value chain for an item
comprising a display of the item’s component parts organized by supply tier, each
part including an associated image and burden information” (Appeal Br. 3)
(emphasis in original). The Examiner found that Evans discloses a system for
generating a cost estimate, the system configured to output a first value chain for
the item by the item’s component(s) and supply tier as claimed (Answer 3 & 5,
citing Evans, Fig. 16, col. 7, ll. 19-29). The issue before us is whether the
Appellants have shown that the Examiner erred in finding that Evans discloses a
system configured to output a value chain for at least one item selected by the
computing device based on one or more constituent component(s) of the item(s)
and supply tier.
FINDINGS OF FACT
We find that the following enumerated findings are supported by at least a
preponderance of the evidence. Ethicon, Inc. v. Quigg, 849 F.2d 1422, 1427 (Fed.
Cir. 1988) (explaining the general evidentiary standard for proceedings before the
Office).
1. The Appellants do not provide a definition of “value chain” in the
Specification, nor do they proffer an explanation of the meaning of the
phrase in their arguments.
3
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013