Ex Parte Anselmann et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Sep 27, 2012

11140665 (P.T.A.B. Sep. 27, 2012)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARKOFFICE
UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
United States Patent and Trademark Office
Address: COMMISSIONER FOR PATENTS
P.O. Box 1450
Alexandria, Virginia 22313-1450
www.uspto.gov
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE FIRST NAMED INVENTOR ATTORNEY DOCKET NO. CONFIRMATION NO.
11/140,665 05/27/2005 Peter Anselmann 6741P069 4875
45062 7590 09/28/2012
SAP/BSTZ
BLAKELY SOKOLOFF TAYLOR & ZAFMAN
1279 Oakmead Parkway
Sunnyvale, CA 94085-4040
EXAMINER
BOSWELL, BETH V
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
3623
MAIL DATE DELIVERY MODE
09/28/2012 PAPER
Please find below and/or attached an Office communication concerning this application or proceeding.
The time period for reply, if any, is set in the attached communication.
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
____________________

BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
____________________

Ex parte PETER ANSELMANN, STEFAN SIEBERT,
STEFAN WEDNER, TESFALDET NEGASH, THOMAS
ENGELMANN, THOMAS SCHULZ, THORSTEN KULICK,
TOBIAS SCHEUER, VOLKMAR SOEHNER, ANTON
FORSTREUTER, BERNHARD LOKOWANDT, CHRISTIAN
FUHLBRUEGGE, CHRISTIAN EMBACHER, DANIEL
BOOSS, HANS-JUERGEN BIEGLER, HEINRICH BRAUN,
JAN OSTERNMEIER, and JOACHIM ALTMEYER
____________________

Appeal 2011-004783
Application 11/140,665
Technology Center 3600
____________________

Before JEFFREY B. ROBERTSON, DANIEL S. SONG, and
JOSIAH C. COCKS, Administrative Patent Judges.

ROBERTSON, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL

Appeal 2011-004783
Application 11/140,665

2
STATEMENT OF CASE
Appellants appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134 from the Examiner’s
rejection of claims 1-21. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We AFFIRM.

THE INVENTION
Appellants state that the invention relates generally to the field of data
processing systems, and particularly to a system and method for performing
capacity checks and scheduling of resources within a supply chain
management (“SCM”) system. (Spec. Para. [0001].)
Claims 1, 2, and 4, reproduced below, are illustrative of the claimed
subject matter:
1. A method comprising:
subdividing a supply chain scheduling timeline for a
particular resource into a plurality of time buckets, each of the
plurality of time buckets having a specified time period and a
specified total capacity supply, the total capacity supply
comprising utilized capacity supply which has been consumed
by previously-scheduled activities and unutilized capacity
supply which is available for processing new activities;
in response to receiving a customer request for a
specified activity to be completed by a desired date,
determining if sufficient unutilized capacity supply exists
within one time bucket in the plurality of time buckets;
determining, by a computer, if sufficient unutilized
capacity supply exists within a combination of adjacent time
buckets in the plurality of time buckets prior to the desired date;
scheduling the specified activity on the resource within
the time period defined by the one time bucket or the
combination of adjacent time buckets if sufficient unutilized
capacity exists within the one time bucket or the combination of
adjacent time buckets; and
Appeal 2011-004783
Application 11/140,665

3
reducing the unutilized capacity within the one time
bucket or the combination of adjacent time buckets by an
amount of capacity supply consumed by the specified activity.

2. The method as in claim 1 wherein the one time bucket or
the combination of adjacent time buckets are selected based on
which of the one time bucket or the combination of adjacent
time buckets will allow the specified activity to be completed
closest to the desired date.

4. The method as in claim 2 wherein scheduling the
specified activity on the resources within a time period spread
across adjacent time-buckets comprises:
consuming substantially all of the unutilized capacity
from the one of the adjacent time buckets which is relatively
closer to the desired date; and
scheduling the remainder of the activity within the one or
more of the adjacent time buckets which is relatively further
from the desired date.
(Appeal Brief, Claims Appendix1 12-13.)

THE REJECTION
I. The Examiner rejected claims 1-21 under
35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Eller et al. (US
2003/0090722) in view of Crampton et al. (US
2004/0030428). (Examiner’s Answer, dated September
29, 2010, “Ans.” 3-9.)

ISSUES
Initially, we observe that Appellants’ arguments against each of the
independent claims raise the same or similar issues. As such, our analysis
will focus on representative claim 1, which contains claim limitations that

1 Appeal Brief filed July 7, 2010, hereinafter “App. Br.” and “Claims
App’x,” respectively.
Appeal 2011-004783
Application 11/140,665

4
are the subject of the arguments made by Appellants pursuant to 37 C.F.R. §
41.37(c)(1)(vii). However, because Appellants argue claims 4, 11, and 18
separately, we separately address those claims.

Claim 1

Regarding the claim limitation, “determining, by computer, if
sufficient unutilized capacity supply exists within a combination of adjacent
time buckets in the plurality of time buckets prior to the desired date,” the
Examiner found that Eller teaches capacity buckets and capacity checking of
production lines to determine remaining capacity for available-to-promise
(“ATP”). (Ans. 4.) The Examiner also found that Eller discloses that the
sum of the capacity buckets constitutes the total capacity of the system.
(Ans. 12.) The Examiner concluded that it would have been obvious to one
of ordinary skill in the art to explore the addition of capacities of a series of
capacity buckets to create the necessary capacity to meet the task capacity
requirements within a desired time constraint. (Ans. 12.)
Appellants argue that the Examiner does not indicate any part of the
cited references that discloses a combination of adjacent time buckets.
(App. Br. 7.) Appellants argue that the cited text of Eller is a general
statement discussing “slotting orders” and checking buckets individually.
(App. Br. 8.) Appellants argue that Eller does not disclose spreading the
order over more than one bucket. (Reply Brief, dated November 23, 2010,
“Reply Br.” 4.)

Appeal 2011-004783
Application 11/140,665

5
Claims 4, 11, and 18
Regarding the claim limitation, “scheduling the remainder of the
activity within the one or more of the adjacent time buckets which is
relatively further from the desired date” the Examiner found that Eller
teaches “adjustments in line loading.” (Ans. 5-6.) The Examiner also found
that Eller teaches “to allow orders to be moved from one production bucket
to another bucket . . . Orders can only be ‘pushed out’ and produced later if
the user request date can still be met.” (Ans. 13, quoting Eller, p. 8, para.
95, ll. 1-7.)
Appellants argue that Eller's “capacity groups” are not time buckets,
but rather physical manufacturing lines for production. (App. Br. 10.)
Appellants also argue that Eller, in describing whether a capacity group is
“under loaded” or “overloaded,” does not disclose that a plurality of time
buckets would be involved or that the buckets’ relative distance to the
desired date would be considered. (App. Br. 10.)

Therefore, the dispositive issues on appeal are:
(1) Does the evidence of record sufficiently establish the obviousness
of a method including the step of “determining, by computer, if
sufficient unutilized capacity supply exists within a combination of
adjacent time buckets . . . ,” as recited in claim 1?
(2) Does the evidence of record sufficiently establish the obviousness
of a method including the step of “scheduling the remainder of the
activity within the one or more of the adjacent time buckets which
is relatively further from the desired date,” as recited in claim 4?

Appeal 2011-004783
Application 11/140,665

6
PRINCIPLES OF LAW
In KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398 (2007), the Supreme
Court explained that “Section 103 forbids issuance of a patent when ‘the
differences between the subject matter sought to be patented and the prior art
are such that the subject matter as a whole would have been obvious at the
time the invention was made to a person having ordinary skill in the art to
which said subject matter pertains.”’ KSR, 550 U.S. at 406. “If a person of
ordinary skill can implement a predictable variation, §103 likely bars its
patentability.” KSR, 550 U.S. at 417.
The obviousness analysis “need not seek out precise teachings
directed to the specific subject matter of the challenged claim, for a court
can take account of the inferences and creative steps that a person of
ordinary skill in the art would employ.” KSR, 550 U.S. at 418. The
obviousness analysis cannot be confined by “overemphasis on the
importance of published articles and the explicit content of issued patents.
The diversity of inventive pursuits and of modern technology counsels
against limiting the analysis in this way.” KSR, 550 U.S. at 419.
A reference stands for all of its specific teachings, as well as the
inferences one of ordinary skill in this art would have reasonably been
expected to draw therefrom. In re Fritch, 972 F.2d 1260, 1264-65 (Fed. Cir.
1992); see also Perfect Web Technologies, Inc. v. InfoUSA, Inc., 587 F.3d
1324, 1329 (Fed. Cir. 2009) (“hold[ing] that while an analysis of
obviousness always depends on evidence that supports the required Graham
factual findings, it also may include recourse to logic, judgment, and
common sense available to the person of ordinary skill that do not
necessarily require explication in any reference or expert opinion”).
Appeal 2011-004783
Application 11/140,665

7

FACTUAL FINDINGS (FF)
1. Eller discloses capacity checking in order to determine ATP.
(Para. [0027].)
2. Eller discloses dividing the total capacity of the system into
"capacity buckets (e.g., available capacity by line, by week)" in
order to insure production capacity available to produce ordered
packages. (Para. [0071].)
3. Eller discloses that orders can be moved from one production
bucket to another if the user request date can be met or if a new
date is agreed upon. (Para. [0095].)
4. Eller discloses that the production planning and order management
processes disclosed therein work together to maximize profitability
for the business operating the assets and simultaneously maximize
reliability for the customer receiving the product. (Para. [0075].)
5. Eller discloses shifting hours between capacity groups based on
demand in order to utilize under loaded capacity to resolve supply
imbalances. (Para. [0094].)
6. Eller discloses a user may also adjust the slotting algorithm
disclosed therein and change the way in which orders will be
slotted to the capacity groups. (Para. [0097].)
7. Eller discloses creating capacity groups that represent virtual lines
composed of hours from physical lines having similar
manufacturing capabilities. (Para. [0088].)
Appeal 2011-004783
Application 11/140,665

8
8. Eller discloses that production rates and efficiencies are created for
each capacity group by averaging the rates and efficiencies of the
lines comprising the capacity groups. (Para. [0089].)

ANALYSIS
Issue One, Claim 1
We are not persuaded by Appellants’ argument that the prior art does
not render obvious the claimed step of checking unutilized capacity within a
combination of time buckets or spreading an order over more than one
bucket. Appellants’ arguments unduly focus on language in Eller that
discusses capacity per bucket. However, the obviousness analysis cannot be
confined by overemphasis on the explicit content of prior art references. See
KSR, 550 U.S. at 419. A skilled artisan often uses his or her ordinary skill,
creativity, and common sense to make necessary modifications to methods
or apparatus explicitly disclosed by the prior art. See KSR, 550 U.S. at 418-
419.
While Eller discloses moving orders from bucket to bucket depending
on promised dates (FF 3), Eller’s disclosure does not exclude situations in
which orders that do not fit squarely in one bucket are spread over multiple
buckets. Rather, one of ordinary skill in the art would have understood that
the system in Eller is dynamic and capable of making multiple adjustments
to capacity planning. For example, Eller discloses shifting hours between
capacity groups based on demand in order to resolve supply imbalances.
(FF 5.) Eller further discloses that a user may also adjust the slotting
algorithm disclosed therein and change the way in which orders will be
slotted to the capacity groups. (FF 6.) Thus, while Eller does not explicitly
Appeal 2011-004783
Application 11/140,665

9
discuss spreading capacity between buckets, Eller informs one of ordinary
skill in the art that adjustments may be made to ensure that orders are timely
processed and capacity is maximized. Indeed, Eller recognizes the need to
maximize profitability for the business operating the assets and
simultaneously maximize reliability for the customer receiving the product.
(FF 4.) It is impracticable and unrealistic that a production manager of a
plant would turn business away because an order could not be filled within
one predefined concrete time bucket. Rather, common sense dictates to the
production manager to look at other periods that have excess capacity to
supplement the capacity of the predefined concrete time bucket so that the
order can be filled, thereby maximizing the utilization of the entire plant and
profits derived therefrom. For example, if an order is received for certain
number of units at the end of February which cannot be fully met (due to
existing commitments or the order exceeds the entire capacity of February),
common sense dictates that one look to any available capacity in January to
augment the capacity of February in order to meet the received order.
Therefore, we agree with the Examiner that one having ordinary skill
in the art would have the requisite skill and common sense to explore the
addition of capacities of a series of capacity buckets to create the necessary
capacity to meet the task capacity requirements within a desired time
constraint. See KSR, 550 U.S. at 421 (“Rigid preventative rules that deny
factfinders recourse to common sense, however, are neither necessary under
our case law nor consistent with it.”).

Appeal 2011-004783
Application 11/140,665

10
Issue Two, Claims 4, 11, and 18
We are also unconvinced by Appellants’ argument that scheduling the
remainder of the activity within an adjacent time bucket relatively further
from the desired date would not have been obvious.
Particularly, we are unpersuaded by Appellants’ argument that
capacity groups are not time buckets, but are physical manufacturing lines.
We initially observe that Appellants do not specifically assert (nor do we
understand there to be) any novelty in subdividing a supply chain scheduling
timeline into time buckets (whether the time buckets be expressed in terms
of a day, a week, a month, a quarter or a year, etc.) Further, contrary to
Appellants’ suggestion, Eller’s capacity groups are a virtual tool
representative of rates and efficiencies of actual physical lines. (FF 7-8.)
Thus, Eller’s disclosure of shifting hours between capacity groups in order
to resolve supply imbalances (FF 5) is not solely directed to shifting work
among physical lines, but would have provided one of ordinary skill in the
art with a tool that considers rates and efficiencies for production scheduling
and capacity-planning. A skilled artisan would have understood that such a
tool effectively provides for a review of capacity over a specified duration,
akin to Appellants’ time buckets. (Spec. Para. [0026].)
In this regard, Eller further discloses that orders can be moved from
one production bucket to another if the user request date can be met or if a
new date is agreed upon. (FF 3.) Thus, Eller informs one of ordinary skill
in the art that orders can be moved between buckets as long as the desired
date is met – a date by which production must be finished. One of ordinary
skill in the art would have understood that if the orders were pushed to a
later production date (due to exceeding capacity in one time bucket), it may
Appeal 2011-004783
Application 11/140,665

11
be necessary to utilize capacity in buckets farther away from the desired date
in order to ensure that the product was ready at the desired date. Therefore,
we agree with the Examiner that one having ordinary skill in the art would
have the requisite skill and common sense to schedule capacity to ensure on-
time delivery as required by claims 4, 11, and 18.
Accordingly, we agree with the Examiner that claims 4, 11, and 18
would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art.

CONCLUSIONS
The evidence of record sufficiently establishes the obviousness of a
method including the step of “determining, by computer, if sufficient
unutilized capacity supply exists within a combination of adjacent time
buckets . . . ,” as recited in claim 1.
The evidence of record sufficiently establishes the obviousness of a
method including the step of “scheduling the remainder of the activity within
the one or more of the adjacent time buckets which is relatively further from
the desired date,” as recited in claim 4.

DECISION
We affirm the Examiner’s rejection.

No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with
this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a). See 37 C.F.R.
§ 1.136(a)(1).

Appeal 2011-004783
Application 11/140,665

12
AFFIRMED

cu