Ex Parte Helmolt et al

Patent Trial and Appeal BoardMay 13, 2013

10308217 (P.T.A.B. May. 13, 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. 10/308,217 12/02/2002 Hans-Ulrich Von Helmolt 6741P010 2003 8791 7590 05/13/2013 BLAKELY SOKOLOFF TAYLOR & ZAFMAN 1279 Oakmead Parkway Sunnyvale, CA 94085-4040 EXAMINER ADE, OGER GARCIA ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 3687 MAIL DATE DELIVERY MODE 05/13/2013 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 HANS-ULRICH VON HELMOLT, MICHAEL PICHT, and STEFAN SIEBERT ____________________ Appeal 2011-007739 Application 10/308,217 Technology Center 3600 ____________________ Before MURRIEL E. CRAWFORD, MEREDITH C. PETRAVICK, and NINA L. MEDLOCK, Administrative Patent Judges. MEDLOCK, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL Appeal 2011-007739 Application 10/308,217 2 STATEMENT OF THE CASE Appellants appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Examiner’s final rejection of claims 1-20. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). STATEMENT OF THE DECISION We REVERSE.1 BACKGROUND Appellants’ invention relates to performing available-to-promise (ATP) checks in a supply chain (Spec. 1, ll. 10-11). Claim 1, reproduced below, is representative of the subject matter on appeal: 1. A method by a computer processor of filling a customer sales order for a product, comprising: determining, by the computer processor, availability of the product; determining components of the product if the product is unavailable; and determining, by the computer processor, availability and location of the components from one or more suppliers. THE REJECTIONS The following rejections are before us for review: Claims 1, 2, 7-10, and 15-20 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 102(e) as being anticipated by Smirnov (US 7,188,075 B1, iss. Mar. 6, 2007). 1 Our decision will make reference to the Appellants’ Appeal Brief (“App. Br.,” filed August 24, 2010) and Reply Brief (“Reply Br.,” filed January 24, 2011) and the Examiner’s Answer (“Ans.,” mailed November 24, 2010). Appeal 2011-007739 Application 10/308,217 3 Claims 3-6 and 11-14 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Smirnov in view of Kolawa (US 2006/0026048 A1, pub. Feb. 2, 2006). ANALYSIS Independent claim 1 and dependent claims 2, 7, 8, 19, and 20 Appellants argue that the Examiner erred in rejecting claim 1 under 35 U.S.C. § 102(e) because Smirnov does not disclose “determining . . . [the] location of the components from one or more suppliers,” as recited in the claim (App. Br. 6-8 and Reply Br. 3-4). The Examiner maintains that the rejection is proper, and directs our attention to Smirnov at Figure 2 and column 2, lines 45-55: determining availability and location of the components from one or more suppliers [see flowchart of figure 2, via supplier system 220 (e.g., a ERP/SCP system or other resource planning system), and configuration engine 210 can be locally located with respect to UI 205, or with respect to supplier system 220]. (Ans. 4) and column 2, lines 45-55: Smirnov discloses that the processes of pricing product features and determining the availability of the product with those features should be considered during the process of selecting individual product features rather than after the entire product is configured. Current product configuration techniques that provide price and availability information only after the consumer has generated a BOM are inadequate and fail to satisfy important customer needs [see column 2: lines 45-55]. (Ans. 7). Appeal 2011-007739 Application 10/308,217 4 However, we find nothing in either of the cited portions of Smirnov that discloses determining the location of a component. Smirnov discloses a product configuration method that gives users (e.g., customers) access to real-time pricing and availability information throughout the process of configuring a multi-feature product (Smirnov, col. 3, ll. 1-14). Figure 2 is a block diagram of the product configuration system comprising a user interface (“UI”) 205, a configuration engine 210, a supplier system 220, and an inventory library 230. Referring to the figure at column 6, lines 3-16, Smirnov describes that, in one embodiment, UT 205, configuration engine 210, and supplier system 220 are remotely located with respect to each other and that in an alternative embodiment, the configuration engine may be local to the user interface or to the supplier system. However, claim 1 recites determining the location of the components of a product in a customer sales order, not the location of the UI, configuration engine, or supplier system of a product configuration system (App. Br. 6-7). We agree with Appellants that the physical location of the user interface, configuration engine, or supplier system does not expressly or inherently disclose “determining availability and location of the components from one or more suppliers,” as recited in claim 1. There also is no such disclosure at column 2, lines 45-55 of Smirnov. The Examiner maintains that because Smirnov discloses that the process of pricing features and determining the availability of products with those features should be considered during the process of selecting individual product features rather than after the product is configured, Smirnov teaches “determining the location of the components.” However, we agree with Appeal 2011-007739 Application 10/308,217 5 Appellants that determining the availability of a product with various individual product features does not require determining the location of components of those products; it only requires determining that the component is available from a particular source, i.e., a supplier, without any need to also determine the physical location at which the component is maintained (Reply Br. 4). In view of the foregoing, we will not sustain the Examiner’s rejection of claim 1 under 35 U.S.C. § 102(e). We also will not sustain the Examiner’s rejections of claims 2, 7, 8, 19, and 20, which depend from claim 1. Independent claims 9, 17, and 18 and dependent claims 10, 15, and 16 Independent claims 9, 17, and 18 include language substantially similar to claim 1. Therefore, we will not sustain the Examiner’s rejection of claims 9, 17, and 18 under 35 U.S.C. § 102(e) for the same reasons as set forth above with respect to claim 1. We also will not sustain the Examiner’s rejection of claims 10, 15, and 16, each of which ultimately depends from claim 9. Dependent claims 3-6 and 11-14 Claims 3-6 and 11-14 ultimately depend from independent claims 1 and 9, respectively. The Examiner has not established on this record that Kolawa cures the deficiencies of Smirnov, as set forth above with respect to the independent claims. Therefore, we will not sustain the Examiner’s rejection of claims 3-6 and 11-14 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a). Appeal 2011-007739 Application 10/308,217 6 DECISION The Examiner’s rejection of claims 1, 2, 7-10, and 15-20 under 35 U.S.C. § 102(e) is reversed. The Examiner’s rejection of claims 3-6 and 1-14 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) is reversed. REVERSED Klh