Ex Parte Dowty et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Nov 28, 2012

11185576 (P.T.A.B. Nov. 28, 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.
11/185,576 07/20/2005 Tracy L. Dowty 016839.000002 4098
7590 11/29/2012
BRACEWELL & GIULIANI LLP
P.O. Box 61389
HOUSTON, TX 77208-1389
EXAMINER
IWARERE, OLUSEYE
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
3687
MAIL DATE DELIVERY MODE
11/29/2012 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 TRACY L. DOWTY, PHILLIP B. COBB, DAN W.
MERCER, CASEY W BRADSHAW, HEATHER U.
PEOPLES, and LISA J. FOREMAN1
____________________

Appeal 2011-004585
Application 11/185,576
Technology Center 3600
____________________
Before, MURRIEL E. CRAWFORD, KEVIN F. TURNER, and
MICHAEL W. KIM, Administrative Patent Judges.

TURNER, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL

STATEMENT OF CASE2
Appellants appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134 from a rejection of claims 1-
36. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We AFFIRM.

1 Consolidated Beef Producers, Inc., is the real party in interest.
2 Our decision will make reference to Appellants’ Appeal Brief (hereinafter
“App. Br.,” filed March 18, 2010) and Reply Br. (hereinafter “Reply Br.,”
filed September 27, 2010), and the Examiner’s Answer (hereinafter “Ans.,”
mailed January 7, 2011).
Appeal 2011-004585
Application No. 11/185,576

2
THE INVENTION
Appellants’ disclosure relates to a system for managing an integrated
supply chain of livestock using a networked system for interacting with
various supply chain entities over the Internet. (¶ [0001].)
Claim 1, reproduced below, is illustrative of the claimed subject
matter:
1. A system for managing an integrated supply chain of
livestock, comprising:
a plurality of producers, each of the producers producing
livestock, including feeding and caring for the livestock;
a plurality of intermediaries for facilitating processing of the
livestock to become finished product;
a plurality of retailers, each of the retailers retailing finished
product derived from the livestock;
a network system for facilitating interaction between the
producers, intermediaries, and retailers via the Internet such
that the producers, intermediaries, and retailers are
interconnected to communicate, manage, market, and transact
the livestock; and
a system administrator for managing the network system and
relationships between the producers, intermediaries, and
retailers regarding the livestock.
(App. Br. 23, Claims Appendix.)

Appeal 2011-004585
Application No. 11/185,576

3
PRIOR ART REJECTION
The prior art references relied upon by the Examiner in rejecting the
claims are:
Curkendall 2003/0177025 A1 Sep. 18, 2003
Ho 2004/0153359 A1 Aug. 5, 2004
Doubet 2005/0065862 A1 Mar. 24, 2005

The Examiner made the following rejections:
Claims 1-17 and 19-36 rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Curkendall and Ho. (Ans. 5.)
Claim 18 rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable
over Curkendall and Doubet. (Ans. 13.)

ISSUES3
Does the combination of Curkendall and Ho teach or suggest the
subject matter of claims 1-17 and 19-36 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a)?
Does the combination of Curkendall and Doubet teach or suggest the
subject matter of claim 18 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a)?

3 We have considered in this decision only those arguments that Appellants
actually raised in the Briefs. Arguments which Appellants could have made
but chose not to make in the Briefs are deemed to be waived. See 37 C.F.R.
§ 41.37(c)(1)(vii).
Appeal 2011-004585
Application No. 11/185,576

4
FINDINGS OF FACT
1. Appellants’ Specification describes that “[t]he system administrator
may include persons, entities, and/or automated systems for administering
and managing the networked system solution.” (¶ [0008].)
2. Appellants’ Specification describes that “custom retail programs”
may be programs defined by retailers based on desired livestock attributes.
(¶ [0025].)
3. Curkendall is directed to a system and method for real-time data
collection and management of livestock which provides quality assurance
source verification data and performance tracking for the livestock from its
conception to its consumption. (¶¶ [0003]; [0181].)
4. Curkendall describes that its system provides for data acquisition
using RFID reader locations, a web-based information system for a beef
marketing alliance, value-based procurement, and supply chain management
for capturing and sharing information from each step in the supply chain.
(Abs., ¶ [0177].)
5. Curkendall states that its system shares livestock information with
“the producer, stockman, and the feedlot, and the packer so that those
entities can make informed herd management and operational decisions.”
(¶ [0034].)
6. Curkendall describes that its system uses sets of rules to specify
what class of data or what data elements within a data class can be sent
either up or downstream to other servers within the network. (¶ [0193].)
Appeal 2011-004585
Application No. 11/185,576

5
7. Curkendall’s system uses RFID tags and visual identification tags
along with historical data to maintain chain of title for the livestock.
(¶¶ [0219] – [0222]; See also ¶¶ [0428] – [0430].)
8. Curkendall describes that its system provides for retailer feedback.
(¶ [0131].)
9. Curkendall states that “upstream data [are] important to the packer
because it permits the packer to select animals that produce the results
desired by its customers.” (¶ [0014].)
10. Curkendall describes that livestock quality factors include “live
animal weight, the carcass weight, a chilled weight; and the yield, grade, and
quality of the carcass and carcass defects.” (¶ [0014].)
11. Curkendall describes collecting data regarding the livestock’s
feed, vaccination, and whether the animal’s diet has been in compliance with
regulatory restrictions such as certified organic. (¶¶ [0131]; [0428].)
12. Curkendall describes a value-based approach which allows users
to assign user-adjustable values to different livestock attributes such as
breed, size, weight, frame size, flesh condition, vaccination program, and
certification in order to acquire specific animals to better meet a user’s
particular business goals. (¶ [0368].)
13. Curkendall describes that values are assigned to the user defined
attributes:
such as a premium of $1.00 per hundred weight for an
Angus breed, a base price of $85.00 per hundred weight
for a 600 pound steer, $1.00 premium per hundred weight
for a specified vaccination program, or $2.00 per hundred
weight premium if the animal has been weaned for at
least 45 days.
Appeal 2011-004585
Application No. 11/185,576

6
(¶[0368].)
14. Curkendall describes that its supply chain management system
allows for retailers to “plan the delivery of specific animals to a feedlot in
order to meet this schedule, and can make decisions regarding the actual end
point; or of accelerating or delaying the weight gain, and therefore delivery
data, of specific animals.” (¶ [0370].)
15. Ho is directed to a centralized supply chain management system
which electronically communicates with enterprise data systems within one
or more supply chains. (Abs.)
16. Ho describes that its system manages supply chains formed by
associations of suppliers, distributors, and customers. (¶ [0032]; See also
Fig. 1.)
17. Ho additionally describes that a single supply chain may involve
multiple levels of suppliers, distributors, or both. (¶ [0032]; See also Fig. 1.)
18. Ho describes that its supply chain management system may be
used to manage the sale of products, services, or combinations thereof.
(¶ [0033].)
19. Doubet is directed to an animal source verification system which
enables country of origin labeling and verification. (Abs.)
20. Doubet’s source verification system tracks animal transfers and
documents each transfer using an animal passport (i.e., certificate) and
records the passport into a repository. (¶ [0026].)

Appeal 2011-004585
Application No. 11/185,576

7
ANALYSIS
Claims 1-17 and 19-36 rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Curkendall and Ho.
Independent claims 1, 19, and 30-32
Appellants argue that the combination of Curkendall and Ho fails to
teach or suggest “a network system for facilitating interaction between the
producers, intermediaries, and retailers via the Internet such that the
producers, intermediaries, and retailers are interconnected to communicate,
manage, market, and transact the livestock,” as recited by independent claim
1. (App. Br. 23; Reply Br. 14-15.) Independent claims 19 and 30-32 each
recite a substantially similar limitation. (App. Br. 21; Reply Br. 23.)
Specifically, Appellants assert that Curkendall fails to disclose a system
administrator and a network which interconnects producers, intermediaries,
and retailers to manage or market livestock. (App. Br. 14; Reply Br. 16.)
Appellants contend that Ho fails to cure these deficiencies since Ho is
directed to a traditional supply chain management system which fails to
teach or suggest “transacting livestock by capturing trades between and
among producers, intermediaries and retailers.” (App. Br. 15; Reply Br. 16.)
We are not persuaded by Appellants’ argument and agree with the
Examiner that the combination of Curkendall and Ho teaches the network
system of claim 1 which interconnects producers, intermediaries, and
retailers to “communicate, manage, market, and transact the livestock.”
(Ans. 4-5.) In making this determination, we find that Curkendall discloses
a system for managing livestock data collection which provides quality
assurance source verification data and performance tracking for livestock, to
Appeal 2011-004585
Application No. 11/185,576

8
all segments of a supply chain. (FF 3, 4.) Specifically, Curkendall teaches
that its system uses rules to provide livestock information from conception
to consumption “to the producer, stockman, and the feedlot, and the packer
so that those entities can make informed herd management and operational
decisions.” (FF 5, 6.) Thus, we agree with the Examiner that Curkendall
teaches a system administrator for managing the network system which
interconnects producers (i.e., producer), intermediaries (i.e., stockman,
feedlot), and retailers (i.e., packer) in order to communicate, manage, and
market livestock. (See FF 1.)
While Curkendall does not necessarily disclose that its producers,
intermediaries, and retailers transact the livestock, the Examiner does not
rely on Curkendall for such a teaching. To address a network system which
interconnects producers, intermediaries, and retailers to transact, the
Examiner relies on Ho. (Ans. 4-5.) Ho is directed to a supply chain
management system which allows interconnected producers, intermediaries,
and retailers to transact or sell products, services, or a combination of both.
(FF 15-18.) While we agree with Appellants that Ho does not disclose
transacting livestock, the rejection of claim 1 is based on the combination of
Curkendall and Ho. Nonobviousness cannot be established by attacking the
references individually when the rejection is predicated upon a combination
of prior art disclosures. See In re Merck & Co. Inc., 800 F.2d 1091, 1097
(Fed. Cir. 1986).
Based on the above, we find that one of ordinary skill in the art at the
time of the invention would have found it obvious to utilize the livestock
data collected by Curkendall’s system, which include supply chain data,
Appeal 2011-004585
Application No. 11/185,576

9
with the supply chain management system of Ho in order to transact (i.e.,
buy, sell) the livestock. The combination of familiar elements according to
known methods is likely to be obvious when it does no more than yield
predictable results. KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 416 (2007).
Accordingly, Appellants’ argument is not persuasive.
Equally unpersuasive is Appellants’ contention that Ho fails to teach
or suggest “transacting livestock by capturing trades between and among
producers, intermediaries and retailers,” as claim 1 fails to recite a limitation
which would require “trades between and among producers, intermediaries
and retailers.” See CollegeNet, Inc. v. ApplyYourself, Inc., 418 F.3d 1225,
1231 (Fed. Cir. 2005) (while the specification can be examined for proper
context of a claim term, limitations from the specification will not be
imported into the claims).
Accordingly, Appellants’ arguments are not persuasive, and as such,
we sustain the Examiner’s rejection of independent claim 1 under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a) as unpatentable over the combination of Curkendall and Ho.
For these same reasons, we sustain the Examiner’s rejection of
independent claims 19 and 30-32 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable
over the combination of Curkendall and Ho.

Dependent claims 2, 9, 13, 14, 15, 20, 24, 25, and 33-36
Appellants do not substantively argue claims 2, 9, 13, 14, 15, 20, 24,
25, and 33-36, which depend from independent claims 1 and 19,
respectively, and so we sustain the rejection of these claims under 35 U.S.C.
Appeal 2011-004585
Application No. 11/185,576

10
§ 103(a) as unpatentable over Curkendall and Ho for the same reasons we
found as to independent claims 1, 19 and 30-32 supra.

Claims 3 and 21
Appellants argue that the combination of Curkendall and Ho fails to
teach or suggest “wherein the livestock is transacted on the network system
from pre-birth through sales of finished product at a consumer retail level,”
as generally recited by claims 3 and 21. (App. Br. 23 and 28, Claims
Appendix; Reply Br. 17.) We are not persuaded by Appellants’ argument
and find that Curkendall’s system collects and manages livestock data from
the livestock’s conception to its consumption (FF 3, 5), and as such, renders
obvious the subject matter of claims 3 and 21.
Accordingly, Appellants’ argument is not persuasive.

Dependent claims 4 and 22
Appellants argue that the combination of Curkendall and Ho fails to
teach or suggest “wherein the producers provide source verification of their
livestock,” as generally recited by claims 4 and 22. (App. Br. 23 and 28,
Claims Appendix; Reply Br. 17.) We are not persuaded by Appellants’
argument and find that Curkendall’s system provides quality assurance
source verification data and performance tracking for the livestock tracked
by its system. (FF 3.) Specifically, Curkendall describes that its system
maintains chain of title for its livestock through the use of RFID tags, visual
identification tags, and historical data. (FF 7.)
Accordingly, Appellants’ argument is not persuasive.
Appeal 2011-004585
Application No. 11/185,576

11
Claim 5
Appellants argue that the combination of Curkendall and Ho fails to
teach or suggest “‘. . .custom retail programs for which livestock is
produced. . . .” by the producers is prequalified for adding value thereto, as
recited by claim 5. (App. Br. 16; Reply Br. 18.) Specifically, Appellants
assert that Curkendall merely discloses the recording of slaughterhouse
information for use upstream, but does not disclose information from the
downstream retailers. (App. Br. 16; Reply Br. 18.)
We are not persuaded by Appellants’ argument and agree with the
Examiner that the “custom retail programs” recited by claim 5 read on the
retailer feedback taught by Curkendall. (FF 8.) This interpretation is
commensurate with Appellants’ Specification which generally describes
“custom retail programs” as programs defined by retailers based on a desired
livestock product. (FF 2.) Moreover, Curkendall describes that its system
sends data upstream and downstream within its network between producers,
intermediaries, and retailers. (FF 5,6, 8, 9.)
Accordingly, Appellants’ argument is not persuasive.

Dependent claims 6 and 26
Appellants argue that the combination of Curkendall and Ho fails to
teach or suggest wherein the custom retail programs include qualifying the
livestock based on attributes of the livestock comprising “nutrition and
feeding protocols, health and medication protocols, palatability, appearance,
designation as all-natural products, product tenderness, product selection
attributes, specialty labeled meat products, and packaging,” as generally
Appeal 2011-004585
Application No. 11/185,576

12
recited by claim 6 and 26. (App. Br. 24 and 29, Claims Appendix; Reply Br.
18.) Specifically, Appellants assert that the quality factors found in
Curkendall are different than the claimed elements and are “provided by the
slaughterhouse to the upstream suppliers and not the retailers.” (App. Br.
16; Reply Br. 18.)
We are not persuaded by Appellants’ argument and find that
Curkendall teaches that retailer feedback is important to the packers because
it allows the packers to select animals that produce the results desired by its
customers. (FF 8, 9.) While we acknowledge that Curkendall does not
explicitly refer to the livestock attributes recited by claims 6 and 26, we find
that these attributes would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art,
given that Curkendall describes quality factors including grade, quality, and
flesh condition, in addition to attributes related to an animal’s feed and
vaccinations or whether the desired animal is certified organic. (FF 10-12.)
Therefore, one of ordinary skill in the art would appreciate that the retailer
feedback taught by Curkendall would include these attributes in order to
provide the packer with the ability to provide feedback indicating what
product is desired by their customers in order to better meet their particular
business goals. (See FF 9, 12.) “A person of ordinary skill is also a person
of ordinary creativity, not an automaton.” KSR 550 U.S. at 421.
Accordingly, Appellants’ argument is not persuasive.
Dependent claims 7 and 27
Appellants argue that the combination of Curkendall and Ho fails to
teach or suggest “wherein the retailers interact with finished cattle
information to develop product promotion and pricing strategies, to
Appeal 2011-004585
Application No. 11/185,576

13
complete supply forecasting objectives, and “to request handling parameters
controlled by the producers and intermediaries for the livestock in custom
retail programs originated by the retailers,” as generally recited by claim 7
and 27. (App. Br. 24, Claims Appendix; Reply Br. 19.)
We are not persuaded by Appellants’ argument and find that
Curkendall teaches assigning promotion and pricing strategies based on
different livestock attributes. Specifically, Curkendall describes assigning
prices to livestock based on a premium certification, vaccination program, or
length of the animal’s weaning. (FF 13.) Additionally, Curkendall
describes that its supply chain management system allows for retailers and
packers to make decisions and plan the delivery of specific animals (i.e.,
forecasting) to a feedlot in order to meet their needs based on an actual end
point or by accelerating or delaying weight gain (i.e. handling parameters) of
the specific animals. (FF 5, 9, 14.)
Accordingly, Appellants’ argument is not persuasive.

Dependent claim 8
Appellants argue that the combination of Curkendall and Ho fails to
teach or suggest the limitation of claim 8:
wherein the retailers prescribe attributes of the livestock
for various upstream supply chain participants including
the producers and intermediaries, the producers and
intermediaries make changes within the system to fulfill
the attributes to create and define desirable parameters
for consumers, and the producers review feedback
regarding the value added by the attribute fulfillment to
make their future livestock management decisions.
Appeal 2011-004585
Application No. 11/185,576

14
(App. Br. 24. Claims Appendix; Reply Br. 19-20.)
Specifically, Appellants assert that there is no teaching or suggestion
in the combination that retailers prescribe the attributes. (App. Br. 18; Reply
Br. 20.)
We are not persuaded by Appellants’ argument, and as discussed
supra, find that Curkendall’s system includes supply chain management and
value-based procurement components which allow a retailer to provide
feedback. (FF 4, 8.) Specifically, Curkendall’s value-based approach
allows retailers to assign user-adjustable values to different livestock
attributes such as breed, size, weight, frame size, flesh condition, vaccination
program, and certification in order to acquire specific animals to better meet
their particular business goals. (FF 8, 12.) While Appellants contend that
the packer in Curkendall is not a retailer (Reply Br. 20), Appellants provide
no evidence to support this assertion. Even so, we find that one of ordinary
skill in the art would appreciate that a packer could also be a retailer since
the packer sells a final product to customers. (FF 9.)
Accordingly, Appellants’ arguments are not persuasive.

Dependent claim 10
Appellants argue that the combination of Curkendall and Ho fails to
teach or suggest “automatically coordinate real time management of their
supplies inventory,” as generally recited by claim 10. (App. Br. 24, Claims
Appendix; Reply Br. 20.) We are not persuaded by Appellants’ argument
and find that Curkendall’s system provides real-time livestock data
collection and management which provides quality assurance source
Appeal 2011-004585
Application No. 11/185,576

15
verification data and performance tracking for the livestock from its
conception to its consumption. (FF 3, 5, 7.)
Accordingly, Appellants’ argument is not persuasive.

Dependent claims 11 and 28
Appellants argue that the combination of Curkendall and Ho fails to
teach or suggest “wherein the supplies inventory includes pharmaceutical
products, feeding equipment, animal handling equipment, animal
identification equipment, feed ration components, and fuel and energy
inputs,” as recited by claim 11. (App. Br. 25, Claims Appendix; Reply Br.
21.) Claim 28 recites a substantially similar limitation. (App. Br. 29,
Claims Appendix; Reply Br. 23.)
We are not persuaded by Appellants’ argument and find that
Curkendall describes that its supply chain management system manages
supply inventory from each step in the supply chain. (FF 4.) While we
acknowledge that Curkendall does not explicitly refer to each of the supplies
recited by claims 11 and 28, we find that these supplies would be obvious to
one of ordinary skill in the art, given that Curkendall describes collecting
data regarding the livestock’s feed, vaccination, and whether the animal’s
diet has been in compliance with regulatory restrictions such as certified
organic. (FF 11.) Thus, one of ordinary skill in the art would appreciate that
the supply inventories taught by Curkendall would include these supplies
since Curkendall teaches managing each step in the supply chain.
Accordingly, Appellants’ argument is not persuasive.

Appeal 2011-004585
Application No. 11/185,576

16
Dependent claims 12 and 23
Appellants argue that the combination of Curkendall and Ho fails to
teach or suggest vendors that provide decision support information to make
livestock management decisions, as generally recited by claims 12 and 23.
(App. Br. 19; Reply Br. 21.) Specifically, Appellants assert that Curkendall
teaches “identifying and tracking,” but fails to teach or suggest “making
livestock management decisions.” (App. Br. 19; Reply Br. 21.)
We are not persuaded by Appellants’ argument and find that
Curkendall describes that its system provides livestock information “to the
producer, stockman, and the feedlot, and the packer so that those entities can
make informed herd management and operational decisions.” (FF 5.) Thus,
we find the combination of teaches “making livestock management
decisions,” as generally recited by claims 12 and 23.
Accordingly, Appellants’ argument is not persuasive.

Dependent claims 17 and 29
Appellants argue that the combination of Curkendall and Ho fails to
teach or suggest that “the network system enables vendors to monitor,
manage, and implement decisions for the supplies inventory to facilitate
fulfillment of livestock attributes prescribed by the retailers, including
managing product orders, monitoring and reacting to customer inventory
levels, and managing shipment and delivery communications and decisions
to customers,” as generally recited by claims 17 and 29. (App. Br. 26 and
29, Claims Appendix; Reply Br. 21.)
Appeal 2011-004585
Application No. 11/185,576

17
We are not persuaded by Appellants’ argument and find that
Curkendall teaches that its system provides livestock information “to the
producer, stockman, and the feedlot, and the packer so that those entities can
make informed herd management and operational decisions.” (FF 5.)
Similarly, Curkendall describes that its supply chain management system
allows for retailers to make decisions and plan the delivery of specific
animals to a feedlot in order to meet their needs based on an actual end point
or by accelerating or delaying weight gain of specific animals. (FF 14.)
Curkendall’s value-based approach allows retailers to assign values to
different livestock attributes such as breed, size, weight, frame size, flesh
condition, vaccination program, and certification in order to acquire specific
animals based upon need. (FF 12.) Thus, we find the combination of
Curkendall and Ho teaches or suggests that “the network system enables
vendors to monitor, manage, and implement decisions for the supplies
inventory to facilitate fulfillment of livestock attributes prescribed by the
retailers, including managing product orders, monitoring and reacting to
customer inventory levels, and managing shipment and delivery
communications and decisions to customers,” as generally recited by claims
17 and 29.
Accordingly, Appellants’ argument is not persuasive.

Claim 18 rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over
Curkendall and Doubet.
Appellants argue that the combination of Curkendall fails to teach or
suggest “fulfilling export document requirements with the network system to
Appeal 2011-004585
Application No. 11/185,576

18
facilitate international transactions of livestock to foreign countries outside
of the United States,” as recited by claim 18. (App. Br. 21-22; Reply Br.
24.)
We are not persuaded by Appellants’ argument and agree with the
Examiner that the combination of Curkendall and Doubet renders obvious
“fulfilling export document requirements with the network system to
facilitate international transactions of livestock to foreign countries outside
of the United States,” as recited by claim 18. (Ans. 12.) In making this
determination, we find Doubet’s source verification system teaches or
suggests “fulfilling export documents requirements.” (FF 19.) In particular,
we find the animal passport or certificate generated in Doubet which enables
country of origin labeling and source verification addresses this limitation.
(FF 19, 20.)
Furthermore, Appellants’ assertion that the animal passport in Doubet
fails to teach or suggest “fulfilling export document requirements” (App. Br.
26; Reply Br. 24), is not persuasive as it fails to appreciate that the entire
limitation of claim 18 recites, “fulfilling export document requirements . . .
to facilitate international transactions” (emphasis added). While Appellants’
Specification appears to be silent as to what export document requirements
are, Appellants’ Specification describes that the webpage reproduced by
Figure 5 shows such information. (See Spec. at ¶ [0024].) We find
Appellants’ Figure 5 depicts “Source Verification” information which
includes origin information, and as such, we find the “export document
requirements” claimed, read on this same information which is generated in
the animal passport taught by Doubet. (FF 19, 20.) Therefore, we find the
Appeal 2011-004585
Application No. 11/185,576

19
combination of Curkendall and Doubet teaches or suggest “fulfilling export
document requirements with the network system to facilitate international
transactions of livestock to foreign countries outside of the United States,”
as recited by claim 18.
Accordingly, Appellants’ argument is not persuasive, and as such, we
sustain the Examiner’s rejection of claim 18 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
unpatentable over the combination of Curkendall and Doubet.

CONCLUSIONS
We conclude that the combination of Curkendall and Ho teaches or
suggests the subject matter of claims 1-17 and 19-36 under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a).
We conclude that the combination of Curkendall and Doubet teaches
or suggests the subject matter of claim 18 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a).

DECISION

We affirm the Examiner’s rejection of claims 1-36.
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).

AFFIRMED

rvb