Ex Parte LAUB et al

Patent Trial and Appeal BoardFeb 19, 2016

12760292 (P.T.A.B. Feb. 19, 2016)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE 121760,292 04/14/2010 131475 7590 02/19/2016 Dilworth IP - SAP 2 Corporate Drive, Suite 206 Trumbull, CT 06611 FIRST NAMED INVENTOR Udo LAUB 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 ATTORNEY DOCKET NO. CONFIRMATION NO. 247-105USCON 8742 EXAMINER PHAM, KHANH B ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 2166 MAILDATE DELIVERY MODE 02/19/2016 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 UDO LAUB, MANFRED METZ, and RALF KUHNER Appeal2014-002883 Application 12/760,292 Technology Center 2100 Before ROBERT E. NAPPI, SCOTT B. HOWARD, and JOHN D. HAMANN Administrative Patent Judges. NAPPI, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL This is a decision on appeal under 35 U.S.C. Â§ 6(b) of the rejection of claims 1 through 27. We affirm. INVENTION The invention is directed to a data processing system which receives reporting data from work centers of a production line and calculates a value for the work in progress. See Abstract of Appellants' Specification. Claim 1 is representative and reproduced below: 1. A data processing system, comprising: an online transactional processing system for receiving reporting data from a set of reporting points of work centers of Appeal2014-002883 Application 12/760,292 a production line for producing a product, wherein the production line is logically divided into shop areas, one reporting point of each shop area being an exit point corresponding to an intermediate production step, the online transactional processing system comprising: a database for storing the reporting data, and a first storage for storing a first table comprising aggregated quantities of intermediate products at the exit points generated on the basis of the reporting data stored in the database, and a server computer comprising: a second storage for storing a second table comprising value increments per shop area, wherein the respective value increments are calculated in part by determining production costs of steps performed in respective shop areas, and a processor for calculating a total value of the work in progress based on the first and second tables, wherein the first table from the first storage of the online transactional processing system is transferred to the processor of the server computer. REJECTION AT ISSUE The Examiner has rejected claims 1through27 under 35 U.S.C. Â§ 102(e) as being anticipated by Yang et al. (US 2003/0233290 Al; Dec. 18, 2003). Final Act. 2-12. 1 ISSUES Appellants argue on pages 14 through 20 of the Appeal Brief the Examiner's rejection of claims 1 through 27 under 35 U.S.C. Â§ 102 is in error. These arguments present us with the issues: 1 Throughout the opinion we refer to the Appellants' Appeal Brief, dated Sept. 26, 2013; Appellants' Reply Brief, dated Dec. 12, 2013; Final Office 2 Appeal2014-002883 Application 12/760,292 a) Did the Examiner err in finding Yang teaches a second storage storing a second table comprising value increments per shop area as recited in claim 1? b) Did the Examiner err in finding Yang teaches the respective value increments are calculated in part by determining production costs of steps performed in respective shop areas as recited in claim 1? c) Did the Examiner err in finding Yang teaches a processor for calculating a total value of the work in progress based on the first and second tables? ANALYSIS We have reviewed the Examiner's rejections in light of Appellants' contentions that the Examiner has erred. The Examiner has provided a comprehensive response to the Appellants' arguments on pages 3 through 8 of the Answer. The Examiner interprets the term value increments based upon the description in paragraph 60 of Appellants' Specification as including the cost associated with the stage of manufacturing. Ans. 4. Based upon this interpretation, the Examiner relies upon Figures 16 and 1 7 of Yang to teach the claimed incremental value and calculations. Ans. 5-7. We have reviewed the Examiner's response to Appellants' arguments and agree with the Examiner's findings. We disagree with Appellants' conclusion that the Examiner erred in rejecting claims 1 through 27 under 35 U.S.C. Â§ 102. Appellants argue that the fields in Figure 17, relate to the statistics on completed lots, not processes and are not value increments. Action dated Feb. 15, 2012; and the Examiner's Answer, mailed Oct. 29, 2013. 3 Appeal2014-002883 Application 12/760,292 App. Br. 14--15. We disagree with Appellants' arguments. Appellants' Specification identifies that the value increment are calculated by determining production costs. Spec. para. 60. Figure 17 of Yang teaches a cost detail for a vendor's charges to perform individual processes, we consider a vendor's charges to perform a process to be a production cost for that process. Further, the Examiner has presented ample evidence to show that Yang teaches work in progress reports. Accordingly, Appellants' arguments have not persuaded us of error in the Examiner's anticipation rejection of claims 1 through 27. DECISION We affirm the Examiner's rejection of claims 1through27 under 35 U.S.C. Â§ 102(e). No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. Â§ 1.136(a)(l )(iv). AFFIRMED 4