Ex Parte Christ et al

Patent Trial and Appeal BoardAug 30, 2013

11298444 (P.T.A.B. Aug. 30, 2013)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE 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. 11/298,444 12/09/2005 Thomas Christ 6741P080 6276 45062 7590 09/03/2013 SAP/BSTZ BLAKELY SOKOLOFF TAYLOR & ZAFMAN 1279 Oakmead Parkway Sunnyvale, CA 94085-4040 EXAMINER SHMATOV, ALEXEY ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 2158 MAIL DATE DELIVERY MODE 09/03/2013 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 THOMAS CHRIST, THOMAS GRIESSER, BERNHARD HAUSER, TOBIAS GUTWEIN, HARALD BREITLING, and DANIEL TSCHOEKE ____________ Appeal 2011-002098 Application 11/298,444 1 Technology Center 2100 ____________ Before CAROLYN D. THOMAS, KRISTEN L. DROESCH, and JOHN A. EVANS, Administrative Patent Judges. EVANS, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL This is an appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) involving claims to methods of warehouse management, and more particularly to posting information related to receipt of goods. The Examiner has rejected the claims as [anticipated]. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). We reverse. 1 The real party in interest is SAP AG. Appeal 2011-002098 Application 11/298,444 2 Rather than reiterate the arguments of Appellants and the Examiner, we refer to the Appeal Brief (filed Apr. 22, 2010), the Answer (mailed July 8, 2010), and the Reply Brief (filed Sep. 2, 2010). STATEMENT OF THE CASE The claims relate to methods and apparatus to provide a delay in posting a confirmation of a warehouse activity in a warehouse having decentralized management. The delay enables a process to be performed with respect to the goods associated with the confirmation. (See Abstract). Claims 1-23 are on appeal Claims 1, 13, 18, and 21 are independent. An understanding of the invention can be derived from a reading of exemplary claim 1, which is reproduced below: 1. In a warehouse having decentralized management, a method comprising: receiving a confirmation of a warehouse activity on goods from a goods processing system of the warehouse, where the warehouse activity is an operation related to processing or movement of goods in a warehouse, and the confirmation includes an electronic document indicating verification of the goods and completion of the warehouse activity, which includes a request to post the confirmation to an enterprise resource planning (ERP) system, where posting the confirmation to the ERP system makes the goods available as indicated in the confirmation for an ERP activity on the goods; storing the confirmation in a memory as a preliminary confirmation, instead of posting the confirmation to the ERP system in response to the request to post the confirmation; delaying the posting of the confirmation to the ERP system to enable receiving a request for a change to the preliminary confirmation prior to an expiration of the delay; Appeal 2011-002098 Application 11/298,444 3 determining if a change to the preliminary confirmation is requested prior to the expiration of the delay; and posting the preliminary confirmation as a final confirmation to the ERP system to finalize the confirmation of the warehouse activity at the expiration of the delay. Claims 1-23 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) as anticipated by Athavale (US 6,539,386 B1, issued Mar. 25, 2003). (Ans. 3-8). 2 CLAIMS 1-12 ISSUE In view of Appellants’ contentions, we frame as dispositive the issue whether Athavale discloses the claimed confirmation of a warehouse activity. ANALYSIS Whether Athavale discloses the claimed confirmation of a warehouse activity. Appellants contend that a person of ordinary skill in the warehouse arts would understand that the claimed “warehouse activity” involves activity on the goods in a warehouse. Appellants contend that such an interpretation is called out in the claims. Appellants deny that a customer order, as disclosed by Athavale, is a “warehouse activity.” (App. Br. 8-9). 2 The Examiner has withdrawn all rejections entered under 35 U.S.C. § 112. (Ans. 2). Appeal 2011-002098 Application 11/298,444 4 The Examiner answers: A warehouse activity is a very broad term in the art. One of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that when a customer places a customer order, the goods come from the warehouse and the order is processing by a warehouse. Therefore, a customer order is a warehouse activity. (Ans. 12). The Examiner finds that the warehouse and the ERP are two separate entities, but that the claims do not indicate whether a customer order is specifically an ERP activity: The claim does not provide any indication that a customer order is specifically an ERP activity. The only thing evident from the claim language is that there are two separate entireties (warehouse and ERP) and the delay occurs in the warehouse prior to making a posting to the ERP. (Id.). Appellants reply: Appellants’ claim recites that the confirmation indicates verification of the goods (that are the subject of the warehouse activity) and completion of the warehouse activity on the goods. If the customer order of Athavale is supposedly the exact equivalent of the claimed confirmation, the verification of goods has been read out of the claims. (Reply Br. 3). The Examiner finds that Athavale discloses that a customer order reads on the warehouse activity and that a customer order is an electronic document which is placed by the customer and then is posted to the system for processing. (Ans. 4). We do not read Athavale as disclosing that a customer order “includes an electronic document indicating verification of Appeal 2011-002098 Application 11/298,444 5 the goods and completion of the warehouse activity,” as claimed in independent claim 1. As defined by Appellants, a “warehouse activity,” or “warehouse task” (WT) is an operation on goods (Spec. ¶ 0019). We do not read the customer order of Athavale as being an “operation on goods.” However, even if a customer order be so regarded, the claims require “receiving a confirmation of a warehouse activity on goods from a goods processing system of the warehouse.” We do not find a teaching in Athavale that a customer order “[confirms] a warehouse activity on goods.” That is, subsequent to a customer placing an order, there may be operations on goods in a warehouse, but the placing of the order, per se, does not confirm that any subsequent action has taken place. Whether Athavale discloses the claimed electronic document. The Examiner finds that claim 1 recites that “the confirmation includes an electronic document indicating verification of the goods and completion of the warehouse activity.” The Examiner acknowledges that the Applicant is free to be his own lexicographer and as a result the same terminology may not appear in the prior art reference. However, a person of ordinary skill in the art could easily recognize equivalent counterparts in the reference that correspond to the claimed elements. The Examiner finds, where broadly interpreted, that storing a customer order, as disclosed by Athavale, corresponds to storing the confirmation of the instant invention. (Ans. 13). The Examiner finds that a customer order is a warehouse activity (Ans. 9, 12, and 14) and that a customer order is a confirmation of a Appeal 2011-002098 Application 11/298,444 6 warehouse activity. (Ans. 13 and 18). “Because the hallmark of anticipation is prior invention, the prior art reference—in order to anticipate under 35 U.S.C. § 102—must not only disclose all elements of the claim within the four corners of the document, but must also disclose those elements ‘arranged as in the claim.’” Net MoneyIN, Inc. v. VeriSign, Inc., 545 F.3d 1359, 1369 (Fed. Cir. 2008)(Citations omitted). We do not find that Appellants’ claims are arranged so as to suggest that a customer order is an electronic document that is both an activity on goods in a warehouse (“[a]n operation on goods may also be referred to as a warehouse activity”)(Spec. ¶ 0019) and a verification of goods and confirmation of the completion of an activity on goods. Appellants’ additional arguments. Appellants advance further contentions, including: Whether Athavale discloses the claimed delay; whether Athavale discloses the claimed preliminary confirmation; and whether Athavale discloses the claimed posting a confirmation. We do not reach the merits of these arguments as our agreement with Appellants as indicated in our discussion supra is dispositive of this appeal. CLAIMS 13-17 AND 18-23 ISSUES AND ANALYSIS Appellants contend that independent claims 13, 18, and 21 are patentable for reasons similar to those argued in support of claim 1. (App. Br. 13-14). For the reasons discussed above, we do not agree with the Examiner’s findings that Athavale’s disclosure of a customer order is equivalent to the claimed confirmation of a warehouse activity or that a Appeal 2011-002098 Application 11/298,444 7 customer order is an electronic document that includes an indication of a verification of the goods and completion of the warehouse activity as claimed. SUMMARY We reverse the rejection of claims 1-23 under 35 U.S.C. § 102. REVERSED gvw