Ex Parte Pujar et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Sep 25, 2014

10095849 (P.T.A.B. Sep. 25, 2014)

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