Ex Parte Pujar et alDownload PDFPatent Trial and Appeal BoardSep 25, 201410095849 (P.T.A.B. Sep. 25, 2014) Copy Citation UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE ___________ BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD ___________ Ex parte APARNA PUJAR and CHALAPATHI RAO ___________ Appeal 2012-000304 Application 10/095,849 Technology Center 3600 ___________ Before HUBERT C. LORIN, ANTON W. FETTING, and NINA L. MEDLOCK, Administrative Patent Judges. FETTING, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL STATEMENT OF THE CASE1 Aparna Pujar and Chalapathi Rao (Appellants) seek review under 35 U.S.C. § 134 of a final rejection of claims 1–23 and 33–36, the only claims pending in the application on appeal. We have jurisdiction over the appeal pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). The Appellants invented a way of replenishing depleted inventories by consolidating items into purchase orders based on specified criteria and of 1 Our decision will make reference to the Appellants’ Appeal Brief (“App. Br.,” filed June 17, 2011) and Reply Brief (“Reply Br.,” filed September 20, 2011), and the Examiner’s Answer (“Ans.,” mailed July 21, 2011). compiling information about purchase orders to enable analysis of purchasing practices. (Specification para. [01]). An understanding of the invention can be derived from a reading of exemplary claim 1, which is reproduced below [bracketed matter and some paragraphing added]. 1. A method for electronically ordering items purchased by multiple purchasing entities within a larger organization that handles purchasing on a departmental level, the method comprising: [1] receiving consolidation information at a computer system over a network, the consolidation information comprising a consolidation criterion specified by at least one of the purchasing entities within the larger organization that handles purchasing on a departmental level for determining how to consolidate purchase requests; [2] receiving requests from a plurality of the purchasing entities to purchase one or more items at the computer system over the network; [3] evaluating the requests using the consolidation criterion; and [4] generating with the computer system one or more consolidated purchase orders containing the items satisfying the consolidation criterion; [5] wherein [5a] the consolidation information comprises a plurality of consolidation criteria specified by at least one of the purchasing entities within the larger organization that handles purchasing on a departmental level for determining how to consolidate purchase requests, and [5b] the method further comprises receiving from the at least one of the purchasing entities at least one hierarchical rule that specifies an order in which the plurality of consolidation criteria are to be applied; [6] evaluating the requests using the at least one hierarchical rule; and [7] generating with the computer system one or more consolidated purchase orders containing items satisfying the at least one hierarchical rule. The Examiner relies upon the following prior art: Shkedy US 6,260,024 B1 July 10, 2001 Benda US 6,937,992 B1 Aug. 30, 2005 Adams US 7,117,165 B1 Oct. 3, 2006 Claims 1–20, 23, 33, and 36 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Shkedy and Adams.2 Claims 21, 22 34, and 35 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Shkedy, Adams, and Benda. ISSUES The issues of obviousness turn primarily on whether Adams’s set of rules regarding authorization levels are within the scope of a hierarchical rule that specifies an order in which the plurality of consolidation criteria are to be applied, and whether the individual authorization levels are within the scope of such consolidation criteria. 2 Examiner indicated that all outstanding claims were rejected under this ground in the statement of statutory rejection. Ans. 5. The analysis omitted claims 21, 22, 34, and 35 separately rejected, and we take the inclusion of these claims in the statement to be a typographic error. FACTS PERTINENT TO THE ISSUES The following enumerated Findings of Fact (FF) are believed to be supported by a preponderance of the evidence. Facts Related to the Prior Art Shkedy 01. Shkedy is directed to facilitating a transaction between a plurality of buyers, an intermediary, and a plurality of sellers over an electronic network. Shkedy 1:10–12. 02. Shkedy describes a transaction between a plurality of buyers and at least one seller that comprises the steps of: a buyer determining an item or service to be purchased, the buyer inputting a conditional purchase order to a central controller (i.e., intermediary party) for the item or service, receiving a maximum offer price in response to the conditional purchase order from the central controller, the buyer either accepting or rejecting the maximum offer price from the central controller. If the buyer accepts the maximum offer price, the buyer’s conditional purchase order is combined into a pooled purchase order with other buyers. The pooled purchase order is then made available to sellers to bid on. Any sellers interested in the pooled purchase order will submit a bid including a bid price that is responsive to the conditional pooled purchase order, including the maximum offer price. A seller will be selected whose bid is the best, e.g., lowest price. Shkedy 3:39–57. 03. Seller database maintains data on sellers with fields such as name, contact information, public/private key information, payment preferences, type of business, and goods sold. Contact information comprises a phone number, web page URL, pager number, telephone number, electronic mail address, voice mail address, facsimile number, or any other way to contact the seller. It also contains data regarding the items the seller can deliver with fields such as item ID, current price, restrictions on sale and discount schedule for large quantities etc. Upon registration, the seller may be required to demonstrate evidence of ability to deliver on goods in each category. A distributor, for example, might submit a listing of the items he provides so that central controller 200 can quickly determine whether the distributor is capable of satisfying a given PPO 110. Shkedy 10:11–25. Adams 04. Adams is directed to procurement of operating resources. Adams 1:13–14. 05. Approval rules are the conditions that a company uses to decide which approvers are required for a particular requisition. The system preferably provides a mechanism for describing the approval rules that is flexible enough to model the existing process at any company. Every company will have its own set of rules, although there are often basic similarities, and many rules can be copied from simple examples. For example, an approval rule may be expressed as a set of conditional expressions, such as "If the amount of this purchase is over $25,000 and it is for software, then the Information Systems department must approve the purchase." Adams 5:59 – 6:3. 06. Adams can parameterize the approval rules by editing the values in the tabular file. For example, a company can change the dollar amounts to be associated with approval by various management levels, without changing the approval rule itself. Adams 16:49– 53. ANALYSIS We are not persuaded by the Appellants’ argument that the rules Adams is describing are organizational procedures relating to the approval of requisitions, for example what level of authority an approver must have for a given dollar amount of a proposed purchase. This passage is unrelated to order consolidation rules. As Appellants describe and claim, an order approval process is a different process than order consolidation. (Specification p. 8 lines 23-32, claim 4). App. Br. 8. Adams describes using a rule for each level of management in authorizing purchases. Indeed, the portion of the Specification Appellants cite refers to managerial authorization. As organizational management of plural levels is inherently, not to say tautologically, hierarchical, such a set of rules is hierarchical, and specifies the order in which the rules are evaluated. There is no contention that Shkedy does not consolidate purchase orders. Its very purpose is to pool purchase orders from plural buyers. The recited consolidation criterion is somehow used for determining how to consolidate purchase requests. Approval criteria are critical to determining whether a purchase order is authorized, and thus are within the scope of determining how to consolidate purchase requests. Such approval criteria are necessarily and inherently evaluated and must be satisfied as in limitations [6] and [7]. There is no contention regarding whether an organization in Shkedy contains one of the purchasing entities within the larger organization that handles purchasing on a departmental level. Thus, the art as applied describes the invention as claimed. CONCLUSIONS OF LAW The rejection of claims 1–20, 23, 33, and 36 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Shkedy and Adams is proper. The rejection of claims 21–22 and 34–35 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Shkedy, Adams, and Benda is proper. DECISION The rejection of claims 1–23 and 33–36 is affirmed. 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)(iv) (2011). AFFIRMED tkl Copy with citationCopy as parenthetical citation