Ex Parte Doerfler et al

Patent Trial and Appeal BoardSep 26, 2012

11213168 (P.T.A.B. Sep. 26, 2012)

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. 11/213,168 08/25/2005 Andre Doerfler 6741P065 9281 45062 7590 09/27/2012 SAP/BSTZ BLAKELY SOKOLOFF TAYLOR & ZAFMAN 1279 Oakmead Parkway Sunnyvale, CA 94085-4040 EXAMINER JACKSON, ERNEST ADEYEMI ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 3623 MAIL DATE DELIVERY MODE 09/27/2012 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 ANDRE DOERFLER, THOMAS GROSS- BOELTING, BERNHARD LOKOWANDT, DIRK MEIER- BARTHOLD, and STEFAN SIEBERT ____________________ Appeal 2011-001827 Application 11/213,168 Technology Center 3600 ____________________ Before: ANTON W. FETTING, JOSEPH A. FISCHETTI, and MICHAEL W. KIM, Administrative Patent Judges. KIM, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON REQUEST FOR REHEARING Appeal 2011-001827 Application 11/213,168 2 In response to our Decision (“Dec.,” mailed July 24, 2012), Appellants filed a Request for Rehearing (“Req.,” filed September 24, 2012). In the Request, Appellants request reconsideration of Appellants’ explicit arguments concerning the dependent claims in view of the Examiner’s apparent expressed intent to apply previously stated reasoning for rejecting the dependent claims (Req. 1-2). While we sympathize with Appellants’ predicament, the dependent claims are currently not under rejection, and thus there is nothing for the Board to consider as Appellants’ desired outcome, the absence of a rejection of the dependent claims, is already the current status. Any apparent intent of the Examiner to apply previous reasoning for the rejections of the dependent claims is too speculative for our consideration at this time. Appellants also assert that paragraph [0168] of Lidow does not disclose “fixed pegging” or matching of specific sales order confirmations with specific receipts (Req. 2). However, paragraph [0168] of Lidow discloses allocating or matching specific orders from specific customers (sales orders) with specific “constrained parts” from suppliers (receipts). The sales orders are “confirmed” at the time the parts are allocated. Appellants appear to advocate definitions of “sales order confirmations” and “receipts” which would exclude the aforementioned application of Lidow, however, neither the claims themselves nor our review of the Specification finds such definitions. We have granted Appellants’ Request insofar as we have considered Appellants’ arguments and addressed them herein. In all other respects, the Request is DENIED. Appeal 2011-001827 Application 11/213,168 3 DENIED mls