Appeal 2007-2173
Application 09/682,701
corresponding supply tier wherein the value chain includes an image and burden
information for the at least one item and each constituent component(s).”
In order to determine whether Evans discloses a computer system configured
to output a value chain as claimed, we must first construe the phrases “value chain”
and “supply tier” in order to determine the scope of the output limitation of the
independent claims.
The Appellants do not proffer a definition of “value chain” either in their
arguments or in the Specification (Finding of Fact 1). In fact, the only reference to
“value chain” in the Specification simply reiterates the claim language without
providing any further explanation or definition of “value chain” (Finding of
Fact 2).
Neither the Examiner nor the Appellants explain their understanding of the
meaning of “value chain.” It is not up to us to speculate as to what each believes
the term to mean. For all we know, the Appellants have one meaning in mind and
the Examiner is using an entirely different meaning in rejecting the claim. Further,
the term “value chain” appears have a meaning within the business art that is
inconsistent with the use of the term in the claims. For example, several business
texts and dictionaries provide definitions of “value chain” that encompass a
sequence of activities and/or a value-added analysis that occurs from product
design through product distribution and service (Finding of Fact 3). Within the
context of the Appellants’ Specification, however, only one piece of the traditional
value chain is examined. In particular, the Appellants’ claimed invention is used to
generate a cost estimate for supporting price negotiations between a buyer and a
9
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013