Ex Parte 6115690 et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Jun 30, 2015

90010987 (P.T.A.B. Jun. 30, 2015)

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.
90/010,987 05/10/2010 6115690 8257-83496-02 2734
7590 07/01/2015
QUINN EMANUEL URQUHART & SULLIVAN, LLP
865 SOUTH FIGUEROA STREET
TENTH FLOOR
LOS ANGELES, CA 90017
EXAMINER
CARLSON, JEFFREY D
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
3992
MAIL DATE DELIVERY MODE
07/01/2015 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 PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
____________

Ex parte Big Baboon
1
,
Appellant and Assignee
____________

Appeal 2014-007772
Reexamination Control 90/010,987
Patent 6,115,690
Technology Center 3900
____________

Before RAE LYNN P. GUEST, ERIC B. CHEN, and
JENNIFER L. McKEOWN, Administrative Patent Judges.

McKEOWN, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL

STATEMENT OF THE CASE
This proceeding arose from a request for ex parte reexamination filed
on May 10, 2010 (the “Request”), of United States Patent 6,115,690 (the
“’690 Patent”) issued to Charles Wong on September 5, 2000.
Reexamination of claims 1–85 was requested. During reexamination, new

1
Charles Wong is identified as the real party in interest; however, in the
related appeal of the ’275 Patent, the Patent Owner identified that Big
Baboon, Inc. was the assignee. See Appellant’s Opening Brief on Appeal,
Rex. No. 90/010961, filed Oct. 4, 2012, p. 2.
Appeal 2014-007772
Reexamination Control 90/010,987
Patent 6,115,690

2

claims 86-90 were added. The rejected claims 1–90 are the subject of the
instant appeal. App. Br. 3; Reply Br. 1.
2

We note that the Federal Circuit recently affirmed our decision in the
appeal of the reexamination of related U.S. Patent No. 6,343,275 (the “’275
patent”). See In re: Big Baboon, 595 Fed. Appx. 988 (Fed. Cir.
2015)(affirming under Rule 36).
We heard oral arguments from Appellant on January 28, 2014, a
transcript of which has been entered into the record.

THE INVENTION
The ’690 Patent generally relates to business to business Web
commerce and to business automation. ’690 Patent, col. 1, ll. 15–16.
Claims 1, 36, and 74, which are illustrative of the appealed subject
matter, have not been amended during reexamination and read as follows:
1. An automated end-to-end business process for product
sales that uses a relational database management system, the
process comprising the steps of:
a first user inputting a sales record to the database for an
order of a customer;
automatically generating a customer invoice;
a second user inputting a customer payment record to the
database, wherein system privileges of the first user and the
second user are at least partially mutually exclusive;
automatically determining a status of the customer
payment as reconciled or not reconciled; and

2
Our decision will make reference to the Patent Owner’s Opening Brief on
Appeal (“App. Br.,” filed Aug. 24, 2012) and Corrected Reply Brief (“Reply
Br.,” filed July 29, 2013), and the Examiner’s Answer (“Ans.,” mailed May
31, 2013).
Appeal 2014-007772
Reexamination Control 90/010,987
Patent 6,115,690

3

during each of the foregoing inputting steps, qualifying
user inputs using experiential constraints, based on the then-
current state of the database as a whole.

36. A method of integrating business automation across
multiple business domains and automatically reflecting
automated business activities of one business domain within
another business domain, the method comprising the steps of:
providing a Web-enabled, client/server relational
database management system storing a database described by a
single database schema including files belonging to each of a
first business domain dealing with products and a second
business domain dealing with payments; and
a user making modifications to a record within a file
belonging to the first business domain, the database
management system in response thereto automatically reflecting
said modifications within files belonging to the second business
domain.

74. A method of handling sales returns over a global
computer network, comprising the steps of:
receiving a Return Merchandise Authorization request
via a global computer network, the request specifying return
type;
evaluating the request based on a plurality of stored
criteria in accordance with the return type; and
if the applicable criteria are met, automatically assigning,
and communicating to a user via the global computer network,
a return authorization number.

App. Br., Claims App’x.

PRIOR ART REJECTIONS
The Examiner relies on the following references:
Doyle et al. (“Doyle”) US 5,694,551 Dec. 2, 1997
Rogers et al. (“Rogers”) US 6,018,719 Jan. 25, 2000
Appeal 2014-007772
Reexamination Control 90/010,987
Patent 6,115,690

4

(filed Oct. 2, 1996)
Mosher et al. (“Mosher”) US 6,029, 143 B1 May 21, 2002
3

SAP AG, SAP R/3 Software Architecture, (June 1994)(hereinafter
“SAP R/3 Software Architecture”).
John Hedtke, Peachtree Accounting For Windows, Made Easy,
Osborn McGraw-Hill (1995) (hereinafter “Peachtree Made Easy”).
SAP AG, R/3 on the Internet (August 26, 1996) (hereinafter “R/3 on
the Internet”).
SAP AG, SAP R/3 Release 3.1 - The Foundation for Genuine
Business on the Internet, (Aug. 26, 1996) (hereinafter “SAP R/3 Release
3.1”).
Dr. Peter Graf and Bernd Kidler, Net Benefits All Around, SAP INFO,
Issue 51, August 1996 (hereinafter “Graf & Kidler”).
Peter Heller, Oracle Applications for the Web, Oracle Magazine,
Volume X, Number 5, (September/October 1996) (hereinafter “Oracle
applications”).
ASAP World Consultancy, et al., SPECIAL EDITION USING SAP R/3,
(Nov. 4, 1996)(hereinafter “Using SAP R/3”).
SAP AG, R/3 System Release 3.0E Online Documentation (1996)
(hereinafter “R/3 Online Documentation”).
Michael Sackmary, A New Twist to a Quality Classic, 30 Quality
Progress 3 (March 1997)(hereinafter “Sackmary”).

3
Mosher is a continuation of U.S. App. No. 08/871, 873, filed on June 6,
1997.
Appeal 2014-007772
Reexamination Control 90/010,987
Patent 6,115,690

5

Peachtree Software, Inc., Peachtree Complete Accounting Plus Time
& Billing, User’s Guide (1997) (hereinafter “Peachtree User’s Guide”).

The Examiner rejected the claims on appeal on the following bases:

1. Claims 63 and 64 under 35 U.S.C. §102(b) as being anticipated by
R/3 Online Documentation. Ans. 3–7.
2. Claims 36–39, 41, 42, 58–62, 75, 76, 81, 82, 86, and 88–90 under 35
U.S.C. §102(b) as being anticipated by R/3 Online Documentation, or
alternatively, under 35 U.S.C. §103(a) as being unpatentable over R/3
Online Documentation and Applicant’s Admitted Prior Art
(“AAPA”).
4
Ans. 7–26.
3. Claims 45 and 46 under 35 U.S.C. §102(b) as being anticipated by
R/3 Online Documentation, or alternatively, under 35 U.S.C. §103(a)
as being unpatentable over R/3 Online Documentation, AAPA, and
Doyle. Ans. 26–31.
4. Claims 1–5, 7–9, 11–12, 15–21, 30–32, 35, 40, and 84–85 under 35
U.S.C. §103(a) as being unpatentable by R/3 Online Documentation.
Ans. 31–47, 50–54.
5. Claims 54 and 55 under 35 U .S.C. §103(a) as being unpatentable by
R/3 Online Documentation and AAPA. Ans. 47–50.
6. Claim 6 under 35 U.S.C. §103(a) as being unpatentable over R/3
Online Documentation and Rogers. Ans. 54–57.

4
We note that while the Examiner did not identify AAPA in the statement of
the rejection, but the Examiner relies on AAPA within the findings of the
obviousness rejections. See, e.g., Ans. 8.
Appeal 2014-007772
Reexamination Control 90/010,987
Patent 6,115,690

6

7. Claim 10 under 35 U.S.C. §103(a) as being unpatentable over R/3
Online Documentation alone or R/3 Online Documentation with
Mosher. Ans. 57–58.
8. Claims 13, 14, 24, and 25 under 35 U.S.C. §103(a) as being
unpatentable over R/3 Online Documentation and Peachtree Made
Easy. Ans. 58–61.
9. Claims 56 and 57 under 35 U.S.C. §103(a) as being unpatentable over
R/3 Online Documentation, AAPA, and Peachtree Made Easy. Ans.
61–65.
10. Claims 22 and 74 under 35 U.S.C. §103(a) as being unpatentable over
R/3 Online Documentation alone or R/3 Online Documentation with
Sackmary. Ans. 65–67, 72.
11. Claims 50–53 under 35 U.S.C. §103(a) as being unpatentable over
R/3 Online Documentation and AAPA or R/3 Online Documentation,
AAPA, and Sackmary. Ans. 67–72.
12. Claims 23 and 26–29 under 35 U.S.C. §103(a) as being unpatentable
over R/3 Online Documentation and Peachtree User’s Guide. Ans.
73–76.
13. Claims 33 and 34 under 35 U.S.C. §103(a) as being unpatentable over
R/3 Online Documentation and Oracle Applications for the Web.
Ans. 77.
14. Claims 43 and 44 under 35 U.S.C. §102(b) as being anticipated by
R/3 Online Documentation, or alternatively, under 35 U.S.C. §103(a)
as being unpatentable over R/3 Online Documentation, AAPA, and
Graf & Kidler. Ans. 78–82.
Appeal 2014-007772
Reexamination Control 90/010,987
Patent 6,115,690

7

15. Claims 47–49 and 87 under 35 U.S.C. §103(a) as being unpatentable
over R/3 Online Documentation, AAPA, and Doyle. Ans. 82–84.
16. Claim 87 under 35 U.S.C. §103(a) as being unpatentable over R/3
Online Documentation, AAPA, Graf & Kidler, and Doyle. Ans. 84–
85.
17. Claims 65–71 under 35 U.S.C. §103(a) as being unpatentable over
R/3 Online Documentation and SAP R/3 Software Architecture. Ans.
85–90.
18. Claims 72–73 under 35 U.S.C. §103(a) as being unpatentable over
R/3 Online Documentation, AAPA, and SAP R/3 Software
Architecture. Ans. 90–91.
19. Claims 77–80 under 35 U.S.C. §103(a) as being unpatentable over
R/3 Online Documentation, AAPA, Graf & Kidler, and Sackmary.
Ans. 91–96.
20. Claims 81–83, 86, and 88–90 under 35 U.S.C. §103(a) as being
unpatentable over R/3 Online Documentation and Graf & Kidler.
Ans. 96–99.
The Patent Owner relies upon the Declaration of David Boulanger,
executed June 14, 2011 (App. Br., Evidence Appendix 1, “Boulanger
Decl.”) in rebuttal to the Examiner’s rejections.
The Requester relies upon the Declaration of Stephen Nuber, executed
April 20, 2010 (“Nuber Decl.”) and the Declaration of Chris Burton,
executed April 13, 2010 (“Burton Decl.”) in the Request.

Appeal 2014-007772
Reexamination Control 90/010,987
Patent 6,115,690

8

ISSUES
1. Does R/3 Online Documentation qualify as prior art?
2. Do the cited combinations of prior art teach all of the elements of
the instant claims under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a)?

FINDINGS OF FACT
The record supports the following findings of fact (FF) by at least a
preponderance of the evidence. In re Caveney, 761 F.2d 671, 674 (Fed. Cir.
1985) (explaining the general evidentiary standard for proceedings before
the Office).

The ’690 Patent
FF1. The ’690 Patent relates to business to business Web commerce
and to business automation systems. ’690 Patent, col. 1, ll. 11–12. “Web
commerce may be defined as the use of a computer network, such as the
Internet, to do business, such as buy and sell products or services.” ’690
Patent, col. 1, ll. 14–16.
FF2. At the time of the invention, Web commerce was well-known
and being performed mostly for consumer-oriented transactions. ’690 Patent,
col. 1, ll. 16–25; see also ’690 Patent, col. 1, ll. 42–46 (noting different
“Web-centric ‘e-business solutions’” offered at the time of the invention).
FF3. The ’690 Patent recognized that it was known at the time of the
invention that Web commerce “allows business to move much more quickly,
without the burden and cost of paperwork” (’690 Patent, col., 1, ll. 19–20)
Appeal 2014-007772
Reexamination Control 90/010,987
Patent 6,115,690

9

and essentially “enables business to move at light speed.” ’690 Patent, col. 1,
ll. 24–26.
FF4. According to the’690 Patent, at the time of the invention, the
activities of different departments of a business may have been separately
automated, but not automated in a united fashion. In particular, different
departments often each had separate database systems, making unified
automation difficult. ’690 Patent, col. 2, ll. 8–42. As such, this results in
“repeated transmission of duplicate information to different departments and
repeated transmission of additional information and instructions to different
departments on an as-needed basis.” ’690 Patent, col. 2, ll. 26–29.
FF5. The ’690 Patent further identifies that “[m]uch of the difficulty
of successfully implementing a cohesive business-to-business Web
commerce solution has resulted from different aspects of a company’s
business being automated on different computing platforms.” ’690 Patent,
col. 20, ll. 9–12.
FF6. Additional issues identified by the’690 Patent with the state of
the art at the time of the invention are fragmentation of information within
the business and lack of timely, verifiable information. ’690 Patent, col. 2, l.
43–col. 3, l. 8.
FF7. “A need therefore exists for software that enables end-to-end,
business-to-business Web commerce and that automates to the greatest
degree possible, in a unified and synergistic fashion, the various aspects of
running a successful and profitable business.” ’690 Patent, col. 3, l. 66–col.
4, l. 4.
Appeal 2014-007772
Reexamination Control 90/010,987
Patent 6,115,690

10

FF8. In at least one embodiment, the invention includes a single
integrated database management system (DBMS) that is either Web-enabled
or provided with a Web front-end. ’690 Patent, col. 4, ll. 12–16.
FF9. Various departments of a business, as well as customers, can all
access and use the single database management system. ’690 Patent, col. 4,
ll. 7–52. More specifically, “in accordance with one aspect of the invention,
files for the automation of various business domains [, i.e. products domain,
payments domain, financial performance domain, and personal domain,] are
integrated as part of a single database schema within a single database
management system run on one or multiple servers.” ’690 Patent, col. 5, ll.
64–67.
FF10. According to the ’690 Patent, use of this single database
business process software allows “[a]ll users [to] have access to all
information except information determined by management to be of a
confidential nature.” ’690 Patent, col. 5, ll. 9–14.
FF11. A conceptual depiction of an automated business process in
accordance with the present invention is shown in Fig. 2B below.

Appeal 2014-007772
Reexamination Control 90/010,987
Patent 6,115,690

11

Fig. 2B depicts a circular automated business process showing that various
domains are able to communicate with each other as well as with a central
client server single relational database. Essentially, the business process
“revolves around a single integrated database [DBMS or client server single
relational database] that accumulates information regarding every important
activity of every user and defines a non-repetitive process.” ’690 Patent, col.
12, ll. 21–25.
FF12. The ’690 Patent recognizes that for a system “to automate an
overall business process,” the single database “schema must,
understandably, be quite complex.” ’690 Patent, col. 20, ll. 26–31. A
portion of a single database schema is shown in Figure 58A, which is
reproduced below.

“FIG. 58 is an illustration of a partial database schema[or partial structure
diagram] of one implementation of the system of FIG. 3, showing primary
files and relationships[.]” ’690 Patent, col. 8, ll. 65–67; see also ’690 Patent,
col. 20, ll. 25–49.
Appeal 2014-007772
Reexamination Control 90/010,987
Patent 6,115,690

12

FF13. The ’690 Patent describes that, in one embodiment, the system
includes updating information “in real time or at regular intervals from
various sources (e.g., by file download, over the Web, or from CD or floppy
distributions or other media or even manual input).” ’690 Patent, col. 4, ll.
21–26; see also ’690 Patent, col. 35, ll. 44–56 (discussing that the system
may be updated nightly to include cross-checks between various domains).
FF14. The ’690 Patent describes that “[b]ecause the DMBS is Web-
enabled, given the appropriate privileges, a complete up-to-the minute view
of every aspect of a business is available from anywhere in the world.” ’690
Patent, col. 4, l. 66 to col. 5, l. 2.
FF15. Also, users of the system “may [] pick and choose the
capabilities that the user wants to use. For example, orders may be placed by
phone or fax but tracked via the Web. Or a user may use the Web only to
check the amount owed on open invoices. Others [sic] user may use the Web
from start to finish, to order products, track orders, track payments, etc.”
’690 Patent, col. 6, ll. 30–35.
FF16. User’s entries may also be “qualified, or ‘quality checked’.”
’690 Patent, col. 11, ll. 36–37. The ’690 Patent explains that “[s]uch
qualification is ‘experiential,’ i.e., derived from actual business experience.”
’690 Patent, col. 11, ll. 38–39.
FF17. In the ’690 Patent’s system, user input may be checked in three
different ways.
First, each user is accorded limited access privileges. An
authority check is therefore performed to ensure that the user is
authorized to make the entry being attempted. Second, the entry
is checked in accordance with business rules that embody best
practice as determined from an analysis of expected parameters
Appeal 2014-007772
Reexamination Control 90/010,987
Patent 6,115,690

13

and how various values of those parameters affect possible
outcomes downstream. Thirdly, entries, even after then are
committed to the database, are subjected to intelligent
consistency checks in order to detect discrepancies and provide
feedback to allow for correction. If input qualification is
successful, then succeeding events in the sequential business
process are triggered.
’690 Patent, col. 11, l. 62 to col. 12, l. 7.
FF18. The ’690 Patent describes that “[a] baseline is a collection of
products that functions as a standard of comparison.” ’690 Patent, col. 19, ll.
17–19. “On the vendor side, one vendor is selected to serve as the baseline
vendor. The baseline vendor will typically be a vendor found to have the
most comprehensive inventory, the most useful categorization scheme, etc.,
and may be varied as often as desired.” ’690 Patent, col. 19, ll. 25–29.
FF19. The ’690 Patent system “automates returns and credits for both
the customer and vender.” ’690 Patent, col. 6, ll. 56–57. For example, return
requests, return merchandise authorizations, credit memos and accounting
adjustments may all be handled electronically. ’690 Patent, col. 6, ll. 60–63.

The Nuber Declaration and Exhibits
FF20. Stephan Nuber testifies that he began working for SAP AG in
1994. See Nuber Decl., ¶ 3. Throughout 1996, Stephan Nuber worked in
SAP AG’s Software Delivery Department and was response for packaging
and shipping SAG AG software to customer, including the packaging and
shipping of the R/3 System Release 3.0E (hereinafter “R/3 System”). Nuber
Decl. ¶ 4.
FF21. Stephan Nuber bases his testimony on his experience and
recollection in working for SAP AG for 16 years, as well as SAP AG
Appeal 2014-007772
Reexamination Control 90/010,987
Patent 6,115,690

14

records kept in the course of regularly conducted business activities. Nuber
Decl. ¶¶ 6–7.
FF22. The Nuber Decl. includes two sections entitled “Description of
Reference” and “Description of Shipping Procedure and Recordkeeping.”
FF23. Nuber testifies that the R/3 Online Documentation, was
included in shipments of the R/3 System and also included in shipments of
upgrades for existing R/3 customers. In particular, he identifies that the R/3
System shipments included “on-disk documentation, called ‘R/3 System
Release 3.0E Online Documentation’.” He additionally states that SAP sold
and shipped to customers the combined R/3 System with the on-disk help
documentation from at least September 16, 1996 to December 22, 1996.
Nuber Decl. ¶¶ 8–10.
FF24. Stephan Nuber explains that the R/3 Online Documentation
was provided in different formats on separate disks for each of three
operating systems, Windows, Apple, and UNIX or OS/2. Stephen Nuber
also states that customers were not required to treat the R/3 Online
Documentation as confidential. Nuber Decl. ¶ 20.
FF25. Stephan Nuber attests that the attached Appendix A is a “true
and correct copy of the contents of ‘CD 1,’” which was identified as the R/3
System Release 3.0E Online Documentation in Windows Help format.
Nuber Decl. ¶¶ 11–12.
FF26. Additionally, the packaging for each disk, as well as the
disks themselves, was dated July 1996 and had the SAP material
number 50015712. Nuber Decl. ¶ 13.
Appeal 2014-007772
Reexamination Control 90/010,987
Patent 6,115,690

15

FF27. The files contained on the Appendix A CD, which have an
electronic date of August 16, 1996, correlate to the printed copy of the R/3
Online Documentation submitted with the reexamination request. See Nuber
Decl., Appendix A; Ans. 56.
FF28. Regarding SAP AG’s Shipping Procedure and Recordkeeping,
Stephan Nuber outlines SAP AG’s standard procedure for shipping the R/3
System. He describes that to prepare a shipment of the R/3 System, he
printed out a delivery note, which included a bill of materials for items to be
included in the shipment. He collected the items on the bill of materials,
including the R/3 Online Documentation (with SAP material number
50015712), and prepared them for shipment. Then, upon completion of the
shipment, he “manually entered the shipment’s delivery note material
number into the SAP system to confirm the date of shipment for the order.”
Nuber Decl. ¶¶ 14–15 and 17–18.
FF29. According to Stephan Nuber, attached Appendix B provides an
example of a letter that would have been included with upgrade copies of the
R/3 System starting in September 1996. The letter is dated September 1996.
Additionally, attached as Appendix B is an exemplary “list of materials” that
are said to have been included in the shipped upgrade copies of the R/3
System. Nuber Decl. ¶ 16.
FF30. Stephen Nuber further testifies that “[a]ccording to a review of
SAP AG records, over 5,500 upgrades of R/3 System Release 3.0E, each of
which contained the R/3 System Release 3.0E Online Documentation, were
shipped by SAP beginning on September 16, 1996 and prior to December
22, 1996.” Nuber Decl. ¶ 19.
Appeal 2014-007772
Reexamination Control 90/010,987
Patent 6,115,690

16

FF31. The R/3 Online Documentation, both electronic and hardcopy,
have a 1996 copyright date. See Nuber Decl., Appendix A.

The Burton Declaration and Exhibits
FF32. Chris Burton testifies that he is currently Vice President of
Global Sponsorships for SAP America, Inc. (hereinafter “SAP America”),
but in 1996, his position was Director of Product Marketing. He further
states he was involved with marketing and planning for SAP’s SAPPHIRE
Conference in Philadelphia, PA on August 26–29, 1996 (hereinafter “the
SAPPHIRE Conference”). Burton Decl. ¶¶ 2 and 5.
FF33. Chris Burton attests that he was personally involved in the
selection of materials to include on a 2 CD set to be distributed at the
SAPPHIRE Conference. Burton ¶¶ 6 and 10. The 2 CD set contain SAP
marking materials, white papers, and magazines, including electronic copies
of the article R/3 on the Internet and white paper SAP R/3 Release 3.1 – The
Foundation for Genuine Business on the Internet. Burton ¶ 11.
FF34. According to Chris Burton, the CDs attached as Appendix B is
a copy of the 2 CDs that were distributed to conference delegates at the
SAPPHIRE Conference. The CDs were, in particular, given to conference
delegates as a welcome packet. These conference delegates were not
informed to treat the materials as confidential. Burton ¶¶ 6 and 8–9.
FF35. Chris Burton also testifies that approximately 10,000 people
registered at the SAPPHIRE Conference. Burton ¶7.

Appeal 2014-007772
Reexamination Control 90/010,987
Patent 6,115,690

17

Using SAP R/3
FF36. “Using SAP R/3” is a book, dated Nov. 15, 1996, directed to
SAP AG products, particularly the R/3 system and its applications. Using
SAP R/3, Introduction and p. 2.
FF37. Using SAP R/3 describes that
[t]he system identification of R/2 or R/3 is supplemented by the
identification of the Release and Version, followed in some
instances by an identification of the latest correction set. For
example, R/2 4.3B signifies the R/2 System Release 4 at
Development Level 3 which has been updated with corrections
set B. Using SAP R/3, p. 68.

FF38. Additionally, Using SAP R/3 identifies that the R/3 system is
marketed worldwide and that in 1996 there were over 5,000 R/3 system
installations. Using SAP R/3, p. 19.
FF39. In the chapter entitled “R/3 Online Documentation Support,” it
states that an R/3 documentation library is provided on a CD and is in the
form of a Microsoft help system. Using SAP R/3, p. 591.

SAP INFO Magazine
FF40. SAP Info, the magazine of the SAP group, includes a number
of articles related to SAP technology, products, and current events. See, e.g.,
SAP Info, Contents.
FF41. Issue 51 of the SAP Info magazine is dated August 1996. Id.
FF42. One article in Issue 51 of SAP Info discusses how to control
product availability, particularly in the R/3 Release 3.0E. SAP Info, p. 5.

Appeal 2014-007772
Reexamination Control 90/010,987
Patent 6,115,690

18

SAP R/3 Software Architecture
FF43. SAP R/3 Software Architecture refers to various help functions
that are available at all times, including online documentation. See SAP R/3
Software Architecture, p. 2–9.

R/3 Online Documentation
FF44. The R/3 Online Documentation is online help documentation
to instruct users on the features of the SAP R/3 Release 3.0E relational
database management system (“R/3 System”). See generally R/3 Online
Documentation.
FF45. The R/3 Online Documentation was supplied on CD ROM.
See R/3 Online Documentation, p. 3 (“This CD ROM contains
documentation for the R/3 System in Windows Help format.”).
FF46. The R/3 System is a central system including a database that is
accessible by many computers or users over a network. See, e.g., R/3 Online
Documentation, p. 13–14, 38. The R/3 System may be implemented over a
wide area network (WAN). R/3 Online Documentation, p. 21.
FF47. Stored within the R/3 System’s database are business records
including information used across multiple applications. R/3 Online
Documentation, pp. 38, 123. For example, records “are stored centrally and
used in the applications Financial Accounting (FI), Sales and Distribution
(SD) and Materials Management (MM).” R/3 Online Documentation, p. 38;
see also R/3 Online Documentation, p. 123 (identifying that different
departments can access the customer master record). Users may view the
records through use of a display. R/3 Online Documentation, p. 83.
Appeal 2014-007772
Reexamination Control 90/010,987
Patent 6,115,690

19

FF48. “The individual applications also exchange data so that
business transactions do not need to be entered more than once. For
example, invoices that are posted in SD are passed on to FI, and data that is
entered in FI is passed on to other applications.” R/3 Online
Documentation, p. 38. The R/3 System further uses a Dictionary that
“makes central description of all data used in the system without redundancy
possible.” R/3 Online Documentation, p. 4.
FF49. “An item of data need be entered only once in the ABAP/4
Dictionary to be available throughout the system at all times. Newly entered
and modified data is made available automatically to all system components,
ensuring up-to-date runtime objects, data integrity, data consistency, and
data security.” R/3 Online Documentation, p. 4.
FF50. The R/3 Online Documentation also identifies that there is “[a]
master record contains all data necessary for processing the business
transactions” and may be accessed by both the accounting department and
the sales and distribution department. R/3 Online Documentation, p. 123;
see also id. (noting that a master record that stores data for both the
accounting and the sales and distribution departments to avoid redundancy).
FF51. The R/3 System provides real-time automatic updating of data.
See, e.g., R/3 Online Documentation, p. 41 (“a general ledger can be
regarded as a complete and reliable record of all the business transactions
undertaken by your organization. It is the centralized, up-to-date reference
for the rendering of accounts.”); R/3 Online Documentation, p. 37 (“Postings
in accounts payable are simultaneously recorded in the General Ledger, with
different G/L accounts being updated according to the transaction involved
Appeal 2014-007772
Reexamination Control 90/010,987
Patent 6,115,690

20

(payables, down payments).”); R/3 Online Documentation, p. 40 (“When
you post documents to accounts the system automatically updates the
account balance.”); R/3 Online Documentation, p. 22 (noting that once an
invoice is posted, the system updates sales and distribution, financial
accounting (AIR and GIL), and profitability analysis).
FF52. R/3 Online Documentation explains that in order to integrate all
information, in the R/3 System documents build on each other. In other
words, data from sales documents are transferring to shipping and then to
billing. R/3 Online Documentation, p. 122; see also R/3 Online
Documentation, pp. 23 (explaining that that sales information is
automatically forwarded to financial accounting to be used in subsequent
transactions).
FF53. The R/3 System “uses a profile concept for granting system
access privileges to users.” R/3 Online Documentation, p. 262, 177. In
other words, a created authorization profile assigns a list of access privileges
to a user. Id.
FF54. Further, the R/3 Online Documentation outlines that the system
may test or check conditions before granting a user permission to proceed
with an action. R/3 Online Documentation, p. 177.
FF55. The R/3 System includes “various checks” such as
“availability check” and “the credit limit check.” R/3 Online
Documentation, p. 122, 126. Delivery scheduling is also automatically
performed. Id.
FF56. According to the R/3 Online Documentation, invoices may be
automatically generated using default data. R/3 Online Documentation, p.
Appeal 2014-007772
Reexamination Control 90/010,987
Patent 6,115,690

21

251–252. Further, billing documents may be created according to a billing
schedule for a particular customer. R/3 Online Documentation, p. 252.
FF57. The 3.0E System also processes returns, with or without a
preceding sales document (sales order or a contract). R/3 Online
Documentation, p. 24. Part of the return processing may include inwardly
posting the goods in stock and crediting the value of the returned goods to
the customer. R/3 Online Documentation, p. 109; see also R/3 Online
Documentation, p. 25, 26 and 216.
FF58. “Returns are used to process goods delivered to a customer
which were damaged, or goods sent on a trial basis which the customer
wants to return before the deadline.” R/3 Online Documentation, p. 208; see
also R/3 Online Documentation, p. 109.
FF59. R/3 Online Documentation explains that the R/3 System also
includes a Vendor Evaluation System that evaluates vendor based on
criteria, such as price, quality, delivery and general service/support. R/3
Online Documentation, p. 135. These can also be used in further analyses,
such as providing for ranking lists for specific materials. R/3 Online
Documentation, p. 136; see also R/3 Online Documentation, p. 159
(explaining that the R/3 System can develop pricing scenarios to compare
product quotes).
FF60. In the R/3 System, a document flow, including the history, may
be displayed. Specifically, “[t]he document flow is updated at document
level as well as for individual items. Regardless of which document you
select for document flow display, all preceding and subsequent documents
are always listed.” R/3 Online Documentation, p. 29.
Appeal 2014-007772
Reexamination Control 90/010,987
Patent 6,115,690

22

R/3 on the Internet
FF61. R/3 on the Internet describes why the Internet is so attractive
for electronic commerce, for both the customers and businesses. See R/3 on
the Internet, p. 1–6.
FF62. Specifically, the Internet “offers excellent conditions for
providing customers information, consulting and support, complements
other marketing procedures and improves the business-to-consumer and
intracompany flow of information.” R/3 on the Internet, p. 1.
FF63. R/3 on the Internet also expressly explains that SAP R/3 with
its client/server architecture is excellently suited for Internet integration. Id.
Further, “[t]he WWW can serve as an alternative user interface for R/3
business applications, and open up new access paths and new business
processes to customers.” R/3 on the Internet, p. 2.

SAP R/3 Release 3.1
FF64. SAP R/3 Release 3.1 describes that R/3 3.1 system delivers the
foundation for business on the Internet. SAP R/3 Release 3.1, p. 1.
FF65. SAP R/3 Release 3.1 acknowledges that the companies were
only using Internet, at that time, for limited purposes, but SAP R/3 Release
3.1 recognized that the Internet “will redefine the paradigm for the way
business is conducted.” SAP R/3 Release 3.1, p. 3–4.
FF66. According to SAP R/3 Release 3.1, the Internet cannot replace
business application software “but instead will create an even greater need
for the worldwide integration of such software.” SAP R/3 Release 3.1, p. 4.
Appeal 2014-007772
Reexamination Control 90/010,987
Patent 6,115,690

23

FF67. SAP R/3 Release 3.1 identifies many, extensive advantages of
business on the Internet for both customers and businesses. Such advantages
include, for example, real-time 24 hour access, worldwide base of potential
customers, and lower operating costs. SAP R/3 Release 3.1, p. 4–5.
FF68. SAP R/3 Release 3.1 also identifies that “[c]hanges to R/3 in
release 3.1 compared to 3.0 are minimal.” SAP R/3 Release 3.1, p. 3.

Sackmary
FF69. Sackmary discloses a system that uses the World Wide Web to
assist in measuring customer responses to products and services. Sackmary,
p. 105, col. 1, second ¶.
FF70. In particular, Sackmary describes that a customer, through use
of a website, can start the return process. In particular, a user provides their
name and additional information and then receives a return material
authorization number (RMA). Sackmary, p. 106. “The RMA number and
customer information are automatically entered into a database.” Sackmary,
p. 106, col. 2, eighth ¶. The customer may additionally include the type of
return. Id., ninth ¶.
FF71. Employees from different departments can access and use the
database information. For example, the sales department can use the
information to optimize marketing and sales plans, while the quality
department can use the information generate process and product
improvements. Sackmary, p. 106, last full ¶.

Appeal 2014-007772
Reexamination Control 90/010,987
Patent 6,115,690

24

Graf & Kidler
FF72. Graf & Kidler recognizes advantages of doing business over
the internet and outlines R/3 internet applications that will be available in the
R/3 3.1 System. See generally Graf & Kidler, pp. 21–23.
FF73. For example, the bank data transfer, used over the internet,
makes banking more convenient and the improved automation means fewer
errors and more structures information. Graf & Kidler, p. 21.
FF74. Further, Graf & Kidler disclose that “customers will benefit
from enhanced and accelerated business processes, to which the Internet and
intranets contribute as an enabling technology.” Graf & Kidler, p. 23.
FF75. Additionally, Graf & Kidler notes that “R/3 has been primed
for the Internet using SAP Automation technology.” Graf & Kidler, p. 21.

PRINCIPLES OF LAW
“The determination of whether a reference is a ‘printed publication’
under 35. U.S.C. § 102(b) involves a case-by-case inquiry into the facts and
circumstances surrounding the reference’s disclosure to members of the
public.” In re Klopfenstein, 380 F.3d 1345, 1350 (Fed. Cir. 2004) (citation
omitted).
“The statutory phrase ‘printed publication’ has been interpreted to
give effect to ongoing advances in the technologies of data storage, retrieval,
and dissemination.” In re Hall, 781 F.2d 897, 898 (Fed. Cir. 1986) (citation
omitted). “Because there are many ways in which a reference may be
disseminated to the interested public, ‘public accessibility’ has been called
Appeal 2014-007772
Reexamination Control 90/010,987
Patent 6,115,690

25

the touchstone in determining whether a reference constitutes a ‘printed
publication’ bar under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b).” Id. at 898-99 (citation omitted).
Our reviewing court has explained that a reference is “publicly
accessible” upon a satisfactory showing that:
(1) the “document has been disseminated;” or
(2) “otherwise made available to the extent that persons interested and
ordinarily skilled in the subject matter or art exercising reasonable diligence,
can locate it and recognize and comprehend therefrom the essentials of the
claimed invention without need of further research or experimentation.”
Bruckelmyer v. Ground Heaters, Inc., 445 F.3d 1374, 1378 (Fed. Cir. 2006)
(quoting In re Wyer, 655 F.2d 221, 226 (CCPA 1981)).

ANALYSIS
R/3 ONLINE DOCUMENTATION
As an initial matter, we note that the Patent Owner extensively argues
that the Nuber Declaration is inadmissible, citing the Patentee’s Due Process
rights under the Fifth Amendment to the Constitution, the Federal Rules of
Evidence, and Title 5 of U.S.C. §556(d). See App. Br. 6-23; Reply Br. 3-5.
We do not address these arguments because these issues are petitionable
matters. See 37 C.F.R §1.181; see also Lingamfelter v. Kappos, 2012 WL
3218529, *2 n.3 (CAFC August 9, 2012)(noting that the government
contends that the Board would not have the authority to consider the Due
Appeal 2014-007772
Reexamination Control 90/010,987
Patent 6,115,690

26

Process arguments and that they should have been raised to the Director of
the Patent and Trademark Office pursuant to 37 C.F.R. §1.181).
5

Now turning to the R/3 Online Documentation, we agree that it is a
printed publication applicable under 35 U.S.C. § 102. The Patent Owner
argues that the R/3 Online Documentation is not a printed publication
because the Nuber Declaration is unreliable. App. Br. 7–29; Reply Br. 2–5.
According to the Patent Owner, the Examiner has not sufficiently shown that
the R/3 Online Documentation was disseminated or otherwise made
available to interested public prior to the priority date of the ‘690 Patent,
December 22, 1997. We disagree.
We first note that the Patent Owner incorrectly asserts that the Third
Party Requester’s failure to corroborate Nuber’s testimony, such as by
providing “source documents” or direct evidence of shipments of the R/3
Online Documentation, creates an inference against public dissemination.
See, e.g., Reply Br. 3–4; App. Br. 26. While these types of evidence may be
persuasive, suggesting that other forms of evidence cannot be equally
persuasive is improper. For example, additional evidence, from independent

5
Patent Owner’s petition requesting an order precluding the Examiner from
citing or relying on R/3 Online Documentation was denied. See Decision on
Petition Under Rule 37 C.F.R. 1.181, Rex. No. 90/010,987, dated March 26,
2014 (“Petition Decision”). The Petition Decision finds that Patent Owner’s
requested relief, that the Patent Office should adopt the Federal Rules of
Evidence, is outside the scope of the 37 C.F.R. 1.181 petition because a
petition is limited to review of an Examiner’s action. We note that the
Patent Owner’s Petition did not argue, like here, that the Examiner’s action
of relying on the R/3 Online Documentation violated the Patent Owner’s due
process rights under the Fifth Amendment and violated Title 5 USC §556(d).
Compare, e.g., App. Br. 9–11, 26–29 with Petition Under Rule 37 C.F.R.
1.181 to the Director, Rex. No. 90/010,987, filed December 12, 2013, p. 3.
Appeal 2014-007772
Reexamination Control 90/010,987
Patent 6,115,690

27

sources evidencing the dissemination of the reference, such as books and
articles used by the Examiner here, may persuasively show a reference has
been disseminated or otherwise made available to the interested public.
Moreover, we do not necessarily agree that the Third Party Requester
does not provide the source documents of the R/3 Online Documentation.
The Patent Owner correctly identifies that the Appendix A CD is not an
original 1996 distributed CD and that the CD was created in 2010
(presumably for the purposes of this reexamination). App. Br. 20. The files
contained on the CD, however, have an electronic last edited date of August
16, 1996, which is consistent with and corroborates the timeline presented
by the Nuber Declaration. FF23, 30, 31.
The Patent Owner further attacks the Nuber Declaration as unreliable
and not credible based on alleged ambiguities. More specifically, the Patent
Owner contends that Nuber’s Declaration is “intentionally ambiguous[]” by
providing an “an example of a letter and list of materials that would be
included” in the shipments. App. Br. 23. Further, the Patent Owner
challenges the Examiner’s findings because the Nuber Declaration never
states that the Appendix A CD was shipped in September 1996 and fails to
provide any sales receipts or shipping records of the alleged 5,500 upgrades
of the R/3 System containing the R/3 Online Documentation. App. Br. 23–
24.
Again, we agree with the Patent Owner that direct testimony of
dissemination or evidence of shipments may be preferable. Nuber’s
testimony nonetheless persuasively shows (1) that SAP AG’s standard
shipping procedure for the R/3 System included providing a CD containing
Appeal 2014-007772
Reexamination Control 90/010,987
Patent 6,115,690

28

the R/3 Online Documentation and (2) that both the R/3 System and the
accompanying CD containing the R/3 Online Documentation were shipped
at least starting in September 1996. FF22–31. We also need not speculate
as to whether this testimony alone would sufficiently establish public
dissemination because the Examiner further relies on additional sources of
evidence to corroborate this testimony. See Ans. 100–107; FF36–43.
First, the Appendix B letter, dated September 1996, refers to a
documentation CD included with the R/3 System package. See FF29. As
the Examiner also identifies, Using SAP R/3, a November 1996 book,
discloses that SAP provides R/3 Online Documentation Support, i.e. help
support, via CD. See FF 36–39; see also Ans. 106 (citing Using SAP R/3, p.
591, 594). Moreover, the title of the document itself, R/3 Online
Documentation (Release 3.0E), and the “help” format of the document at
least suggests that the document was intended to be supplied with the R/3
System. FF44.
The Examiner additionally corroborates the R/3 System distribution
date by citing not only the September 1996 date of the Appendix B letter and
the July 1996 date on the Appendix B CD label, but also an August 1996
issue of SAP INFO Magazine. Ans. 105; see also FF40–42. That issue
includes an article discussing features of the R/3 Release 3.0E. Id. (citing
SAP INFO p. 5); FF42. Furthermore, the R/3 Online Documentation itself
bears a 1996 copyright date and the electronic files have an August 16, 1996
last edited date. FF31.
The Patent Owner only challenges the Nuber Declaration and fails to
persuasively address, or even mention, any of the additional corroborating
Appeal 2014-007772
Reexamination Control 90/010,987
Patent 6,115,690

29

evidence cited by the Examiner. Contrary to Patent Owner’s assertions, all
of the corroborating evidence relied upon by the Examiner, Using SAP R/3
(November 1996 date), SAP INFO (August 1996 date), and SAP R/3
Software Architecture (1994 date) are prior to December 22, 1997.
Finally, the Patent Owner identifies alleged inconsistencies in the
Nuber Declaration. See, e.g., App. Br. 23–24. For example, the labeling of
the Nuber’s Appendix A CD as English with no control number as compared
to the labeling English, German and French on Nuber’s Appendix B CD. Id.
As the Patent Owner points out though, Appendix A was created in 2010 for
this reexamination, it is not telling then that the labeling does not match the
Appendix B labeling. Similarly, the Appendix B letter’s different font styles
do not warrant entirely discounting Nuber’s testimony.
Based on the totality of evidence, we agree that the R/3 Online
Documentation was disseminated or otherwise made available to the
interested public prior to December 22, 1996 and therefore qualifies as prior
art.

Claims 1–5, 7–9, 11–12, 15–21, 30–32, 35, 40, 54–55, AND 84–85
THE OBVIOUSNESS REJECTION BASED ON R/3 ONLINE DOCUMENTATION
Based on the record before us, we find that the Examiner did not err in
rejecting claims 1–5, 7–9, 11–12, 15–21, 30–32, 35, 40, 54–55, and 84–85
as unpatentable over R/3 Online Documentation.
According to the Patent Owner, R/3 Online Documentation fails to
disclose or suggest “real-time synchronized data update.” See, e.g., App. Br.
33–38; Reply Br 5–10. While the claims do not recite this limitation, the
Appeal 2014-007772
Reexamination Control 90/010,987
Patent 6,115,690

30

Patent Owner asserts that “the claimed ‘relational database management
system’ necessarily requires ‘a relational database server providing for real-
time synchronized data update. . . .” App. Br. 38; Reply Br 5–6.
6

To support this interpretation, the Patent Owner does not rely on the
language of the claims or the Specification.
7
See, e.g., App. Br. 33–35.
Instead, Patent Owner’s interpretation is based on the Examiner’s statements
in the Reasons for Allowance during the original prosecution of the ’690
Patent. App. Br. 34; Reply Br. 6. Namely, the Patent Owner contends that
the Examiner’s unilateral statements as to the allowable subject matter, that
included “providing for real-time synchronized data update” limit the scope
of all the claims.
For support, the Patent Owner cites Salazar v. Procter & Gamble
Company, 414 F.3d 1342, 1346 (Fed. Cir. 2005). See Reply Br. 6–7.
According to the Patent Owner, Salazar holds that a narrow interpretation is
appropriate in District Court where “patentee . . . lets stand and Examiner’s

6
We note that while claim 54 recites a method of tracking financial
information on a real-time basis, the Patent Owner does not contend that this
language requires providing real time synchronized data update. Instead, the
Patent Owner asserts that a relational database server require this limitation.
Moreover, as the Examiner points out, the limitations of claim 54 show that
the method of tracking financial information on a real-time basis may be
continuously or at programmed intervals. Ans. 110.
7
Although not argued by the Patent Owner, we also note that the
Specification may not support Patent Owner’s proposed interpretation
requiring “real-time” data update. For example, the Specification explains
that certain information is “updated electronically in real time or at regular
intervals from various sources (e.g. by file download, over the Web, or from
CD or floppy distributions or other media or even manual input.” ’690
Patent, col. 4, ll. 20–26.
Appeal 2014-007772
Reexamination Control 90/010,987
Patent 6,115,690

31

restrictive interpretation of a claim) Reply Br. 6–7 (citing TorPharm Inc. v.
Ranbaxy Pharmaceuticals, Inc., 336 F.3d 1322, 1330 (Fed. Cir. 2003)).
We find this argument unpersuasive. We note first that Salazar was
appealed from a district court proceeding. As such, the broadest reasonable
interpretation standard was not applied by the Federal Circuit. See In re
Yamamoto, 740 F.2d 1569, 1571 (Fed. Cir. 1984)(finding that the Board
construes disputed limitations according to their broadest reasonable
interpretation consistent with the specification during reexamination).
The Patent Owner’s reliance on Salazar is also misplaced.
Specifically, the Federal Circuit in Salazar expressly distinguishes Patent
Owner’s reasoning.
This court in Torpharm held that the applicant’s “acquiescence”
in the obviousness rejection by amending its claims did not
preclude the patentee from contesting obviousness in litigation.
Id. at 1331. Thus, Torpharm does not hold that a patentee’s
silence in the face of an examiner’s unilateral statements in a
Notice of Allowance amounts to a clear disavowal of claim
scope.
Salazar, 414 F.3d at 1346.
Further, the Federal Circuit states that
[t]his court has recognized that an Examiner’s Statement of
Reasons for Allowance “will not necessarily limit a claim.”
ACCO Brands, Inc. v. Micro Sec. Devices, Inc., 346 F.3d 1075,
1079 (Fed. Cir. 2003). Consequently, an applicant's silence
regarding statements made by the examiner during prosecution,
without more, cannot amount to a “clear and unmistakable
disavowal” of claim scope. See 3M Innovative Props., 350 F.3d
at 1373–74 (“‘Prosecution history ... cannot be used to limit the
scope of a claim unless the applicant took a position before the
PTO.’ Schwing GmbH v. Putzmeister Aktiengesellschaft, 305
F.3d 1318, 1324–25 (Fed. Cir. 2002) (emphasis added).
Appeal 2014-007772
Reexamination Control 90/010,987
Patent 6,115,690

32

Salazar, 414 F.3d at 1345; see also id. (quoting 37 C.F.R. §1.109 (1996) and
noting that these regulations state “that the applicant does not acquiesce in
[the Examiner’s statement in the Reasons for Allowance] if the applicant
declines to respond.”). As such, Salazar does not support Patent Owner’s
assertion that the Examiner’s unilateral statement, without more, would limit
the scope of the claims.
Notably, the Patent Owner here presents no argument that either the
claims or the Specification support the proposed narrowing of claim scope to
require a relational database server providing for real-time synchronized data
update. Nor does Patent Owner contend that this position was asserted
during the original prosecution of the ’690 Patent. See, e.g., App. Br. 33–35,
38–39; Reply Br. 5–6. Without more, we are not persuaded that the
Examiner’s unilateral statement in the original prosecution warrants limiting
the claims to require real-time synchronized data update. As such, we are
not convinced that the Examiner erred in rejecting Patent Owner’s asserted
interpretation.
Nevertheless, even if the Patent Owner’s interpretation of the claimed
relational database management system was adopted to require providing for
real-time synchronized data update, we are not persuaded that R/3 Online
Documentation fails to disclose this limitation. The Patent Owner
essentially argues that because R/3 Online Documentation includes use of
pool and cluster tables, R/3 Online Documentation cannot provide for real-
time synchronized data update. See, e.g., App. Br. 35–38; Reply Br. 7–9;
see also App. Br. 36 (citing Doppelhammer, Jochen, et al., Database
Performance in the Real World-TPC-D and SAP R/3-, § 2.2, ¶¶2–3)
Appeal 2014-007772
Reexamination Control 90/010,987
Patent 6,115,690

33

(hereinafter “Doppelhammer”). According to the Patent Owner, providing
for real-time synchronized data update requires direct table management and
that “there is complete one-to-one mapping between the way the data is
organized in the application and the way it is organized in the database so
that the database is structurally capable to directly accessible from the
interface applications.” App. Br. 35.
Notably, neither direct table management nor one-to-one mapping is
recited in the claims. See Ans. 111–112. The Specification, likewise, does
not support the Patent Owner’s argument that the claimed invention
precludes use of pool or cluster tables. The portions of the ’690 Patent cited
by the Patent Owner merely describe using a single integrated database
management system that provides all users access to all information. See
’690 Patent, col. 4, ll. 7–34, FF9–10. The ’690 Patent also recognizes that
this “schema must, understandably, be quite complex.” ’690 Patent, col. 20,
ll. 26–32, FF12.
R/3 Online Documentation teaches a relational database system that
provides automatic, real-time updating of data. FF47–51. Moreover, as the
Examiner explains, in responding to the Patent Owner’s reliance on
Doppelhammer,
[n]either Dopplehammer nor the pages cited regarding SAP’s
pool or cluster tables state that such encapsulated tables prevent
the system from being a ‘real-time’ system. Indirectly
accessing encapsulated tables may be more complex but does
not necessarily require batch or non-real-time process.
Ans. 114. The Examiner further notes that (1) the majority of the tables in
the R/3 Online Documentation are in fact transparent (over 75%), (2) users
may convert pool and cluster tables to transparent tables, and (3) the
Appeal 2014-007772
Reexamination Control 90/010,987
Patent 6,115,690

34

evidence relied upon by the Patent Owner states that “[a]ll data of
commercial relevance is stored exclusively in transparent tables.” Ans. 113
(emphasis omitted). We are not persuaded that the Examiner erred in
finding that the claimed invention does not preclude use of pool or cluster
tables or in finding that R/3 Online Documentation teaches providing for
real-time synchronized data update.
The Patent Owner’s assertion that R/3 Online Documentation fails to
teach the automatic creation of invoices is likewise unavailing. See App.
Br. 39; Reply Br. 10. Specifically, the Patent Owner maintains that R/3
Online Documentation requires “considerable user input and participation.”
App. Br. 39; Reply Br. 10. The Patent Owner, however, fails to explain how
“considerable” user input distinguishes the claimed invention. For example,
claim 1 also requires user input. App. Br., Claims App’x (“a first user
inputting a sales record to the database for an order of a customer”).
As the Examiner finds, R/3 Online Documentation describes using
default data to create an invoice. See Ans. 31, FF56. “While a request to
generate an invoice may involve user steps, the invoice is nonetheless
subsequently generated with automation or automatically.” Ans. 115–116.
As such, we are not persuaded that the Examiner erred in finding that R/3
Online Documentation teaches automatic creation of invoices.
We also find unpersuasive Patent Owner’s argument that R/3 Online
Documentation fails to teach the claimed mutually exclusive system
privileges. See App. Br. 39. R/3 Online Documentation expressly describes
organizing access privileges by task or job function. Ans. 32, FF53. Based
on this teaching,
Appeal 2014-007772
Reexamination Control 90/010,987
Patent 6,115,690

35

[i]t would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill at the time
of the invention to have authorized salespersons to create the
sales orders in the system and to have authorized accounts
receivable clerks with the ability to enter customer payments.
Where accounts receivable clerks are not trained or otherwise
tasked with creating sales orders, it would have been obvious to
one of ordinary skill at the time of the invention for them to
lack such sales order creation authorization in the system.
Ans. 32. The Patent Owner’s conclusory assertion does not persuade us that
the Examiner erred in these findings.
The Patent Owner next argues that R/3 Online Documentation lacks
qualifying user inputs using experiential constraints. App. Br. 39–40; Reply
Br. 11–12. We disagree. The ’690 Patent describes that “qualification of
user inputs has multiple facets.” ’690 Patent, col. 11, ll. 61–62. The ’690
Patent describes, as the Examiner points out, that “[t]he user’s entry is
qualified, or ‘quality checked,’ as represented by a check valve. Such
qualification is ‘experiential,’ i.e., derived from actual business experience. .
. .” Ans. 116 (quoting’690 Patent, col. 11, ll. 36–39)(emphasis omitted),
FF16. Further, a user input may be qualified by (1) checking that the user is
authorized to make the entry, (2) checking that the entry is in accordance
with business rules and (3) performing consistency checks. ’690 Patent, col.
11, l. 60 – col. 12, l. 5, FF17.
Considering these disclosures, the Examiner finds that the user’s
current access authorizations in R/3 Online Documentation “are a reflection
of the current state of the database as a whole” and “[t]he programmed rules,
criteria, operations, functions, procedures, constraints, validations, etc., of
the deployed R/3 system each are taken to stem from ‘business experience’
and are therefore ‘experiential’.” Ans. 32–33. These findings are consistent
Appeal 2014-007772
Reexamination Control 90/010,987
Patent 6,115,690

36

with the ’690 Patent. See Ans. 116; see also ’690 Patent, col. 27, ll. 42–53
(disclosing business rules implemented in one embodiment that allow only
certain authorized users to perform certain actions); ’690 Patent, col. 35, ll.
45–46 (referring to the “foregoing business rules, or experiential
constraints,. . . .”).
The Patent Owner fails to persuasively identify error in these findings.
Instead, the Patent Owner contends “[e]xperiential constraints is based on
the experience of the database, i.e., the data contained in the database and
changes to that data.” App. Br. 40. According to the Patent Owner, R/3
Online Documentation is “static, fixed, predefined, prewritten user
instructions and mandates a user to rely on a user manual” and thus
“precludes database modification providing experiential constraints of the
current database as a whole, as claimed.” App. Br. 40.
While the R/3 Online Documentation, or system manual, may have
been provided to a user on a CD disc, the disclosed operational system itself,
the R/3 System, is not static, fixed, or predefined, but allows users to interact
with and modify data within the system. Ans. 116, FF46–52. For example,
the R/3 System provides for assigning authorizations or access privileges by
modifying authorization profiles. FF53–54.
Moreover, the Patent Owner’s allegation that the recited “experiential
constraints” requires some database modification is not commensurate with
the scope of the claim. Instead, the claim merely requires that the recited
“qualifying user inputs using experiential constraints, based on the then-
current state of the database as a whole.” While the claim requires the
qualification to be based on a current state of the database, nothing precludes
Appeal 2014-007772
Reexamination Control 90/010,987
Patent 6,115,690

37

this current state from being an unmodified database state. Moreover, as
the’690 Patent describes, one way to qualify user input, is through current
user authorizations. See ’690 Patent, col. 11, ll. 30–65, FF17. We are not
persuaded that the Examiner erred in finding that each user’s current access
authorization, as taught by R/3 Online Documentation, qualifies the user’s
inputs using experiential constraints based on the then-current state of the
database.
Additionally, the Examiner finds that R/3 Online Documentation
satisfies the recited qualifying of user inputs by presenting delivery options
to users when the user is a preexisting customer or when an availability
check identified insufficient stock. Namely, these presented options are
experience-based data entry validation and are a reflection of the current
state of the database as a whole. Ans. 33 (citing R/3 Online Documentation,
p 126); see also Ans. 117, FF53–55. We are also not persuaded of error in
these findings.
With respect to claim 2, the Patent Owner asserts that R/3 Online
Documentation does not teach a single database described by a single
database schema. Reply Br 12. Specifically, “[a] single database schema
must provide “real-time synchronized data update,” which R/3 Online
Documentation cannot teach because it describes using pool and cluster
tables. Reply Br. 12. For the reasons discussed above with respect to
providing for real-time synchronized data update and R/3 Online
Documentation’s pool and cluster tables, we find this argument unavailing.
With respect to claims 31 and 32, the Patent Owner additionally
asserts that “the claimed ‘global computer network’ refers to the Internet”
Appeal 2014-007772
Reexamination Control 90/010,987
Patent 6,115,690

38

and would not include an internal communications system, “even if that
communications is over a [wide area network] WAN.” App. Br. 40.
According to the Patent Owner, “[R/3 Online Documentation] lacks this
capability of ‘everywhere’ and ’anywhere.’” App. Br. 40.
We disagree. Namely, the Patent Owner fails to persuasively support
the interpretation that the recited global computer network necessarily refers
to the Internet or the World Wide Web (“Web”).
8
To the contrary, the’690
Patent, while discussing “Web Commerce,” refers to the Internet as an
example of a computer network. ’690 Patent, col. 1, ll. 14–15 (“Web
commerce may be defined as the use of a computer network, such as the
Internet, to do business, such as buy and sell products or services.”).
As the Examiner explains, R/3 Online Documentation teaches using a
WAN, which includes a worldwide network. Ans. 46, FF46; see also Ans.
46, n. 2 (citing Stallings et al., “Business Data Communications” second
edition, Prentice Hall, 1994, p. 236)(noting that wide-area networks (WANs)
are used to connect stations over a large area: anything from a metropolitan
area to worldwide).
Therefore, for at least the reasons discussed above and identified by
the Examiner, we find that the R/3 Online Documentation renders obvious
claims 1–5, 7–9, 11–12, 15–21, 30–32, 35, 40, 54–55, and 84–85.
9

Accordingly, we affirm the rejection.

8
We also note that the Examiner presents additional findings, as discussed
below, for rejecting claims that recite “Web” limitations.
9
The Patent Owner, for the first time in the Reply Brief, presents several
new arguments. See, e.g., Reply Br. 11 (“automatically determine the status.
. . as reconciled. . .”), 12–13 (“virtual inventory model”), 13(“performing a
Appeal 2014-007772
Reexamination Control 90/010,987
Patent 6,115,690

39

Claims 36–39, 41, 42, 58–62, 75, 76, 81, 82, 86, AND 88–90
THE OBVIOUSNESS REJECTION BASED ON R/3 ONLINE DOCUMENTATION
AND AAPA
Based on the record before us, we find that the Examiner did not err in
rejecting claims 36–39, 41, 42, 58–62, 75, 76, 81, 82, 86, and 88–90 as
obvious.
The Patent Owner repeats arguments that R/3 Online Documentation
fails to teach a relational database server providing for real-time
synchronized data update. See, e.g., App. Br. 33–37, 41; Reply Br. 5–9, 16.
For the reasons discussed above, we find these arguments unpersuasive.
With respect to the claimed “Web-enabled” limitation, the Examiner
finds that the ’690 Patent, in discussing the state of the art at the time of the
invention, “recognized that ‘Web commerce’ was known [] and that it
‘allows business to move much more quickly, without the burden and cost of
paperwork.’” Ans. 8 (quoting’690 Patent, col. 1, ll. 19–20). As such, “[i]t
would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill at the time of the invention
to have used the Web as a means to provide the desired remote WAN
interface for an R/3 system of 3.0E documentation.” Id.
On the other hand, the Patent Owner asserts that it would not “have
been obvious in 1996 to modify [the R/3 System] to make it ‘Web-

suite of database checks using experiential constraints” and “warranty”
return type). These arguments, presented for the first time in the Reply
Brief, are waived as untimely. See Ex parte Borden, 93 USPQ2d 1473, 1474
(BPAI 2010) (informative) (“[The reply brief [is not] an opportunity to make
arguments that could have been made in the principal brief on appeal to
rebut the Examiner’s rejections, but were not.”).
Appeal 2014-007772
Reexamination Control 90/010,987
Patent 6,115,690

40

enabled.’” App. Br. 41–42; see also Reply Br. 14-15. The Patent Owner
maintains that at the time of the invention companies merely used the
internet or Web for limited purposes, not doing business-to-business Web
commerce. App. Br. 41–42. Security concerns are also cited by the Patent
Owner as to why the combination would not be obvious. See App. Br. 42
(“In 1996, development of the Internet and the World Wide Web were still
in their infancy with companies still unsure whether the then-existing
security tools were sufficient to protect internal data systems if those
systems were made accessible over the Internet”); see also Boulanger Decl.
¶15 (repeating the same).
The Patent Owner’s arguments, though, fail to address the express
teachings of either reference, including the recognized well-known benefits
of doing business commerce over the internet, or the reasons set forth by the
Examiner for the combination. The Patent Owner’s generic, unsupported
assertions are unpersuasive.
Moreover, we agree with the Examiner’s response to Patent Owner’s
contentions. See, e.g., Ans. 108–109. For example, the Examiner notes that
common use of the Internet for email does not support the notion that it
would not be obvious to use the Internet for business commerce. With
respect to Patent Owner’s reliance on R/3 Release 3.1, we agree with the
Examiner that “[i]f anything [R/3 Release 3.1] is another example describing
the benefits of putting your business on the Internet. . . .” Ans. 108, 64–68.
R/3 Release 3.1 expressly identifies that “[c]hanges to R/3 in release 3.1
compared to 3.0 are minimal.” Id. at 109 (citing R/3 Release 3.1, p. 3 ¶3).
As such, we are not convinced that the Examiner erred in finding that the
Appeal 2014-007772
Reexamination Control 90/010,987
Patent 6,115,690

41

claimed “Web-enabled” limitation is obvious over R/3 Online
Documentation and AAPA.
10

The Patent Owner next argues that the R/3 Online Documentation
does not teach a single database schema.

According to the Patent Owner, a
single database schema “always [provides] ‘real-time synchronized data
update,’” which cannot be provided through use of R/3 Online
Documentation’s cluster and pool tables. App. Br. 42; see also App. Br. 37–
38 (discussing, in part, that a single database schema requires direct table
management). These features, though, are notably absent from the claims
and the Patent Owner provides no support for this narrow interpretation.
The Patent Owner’s blanket assertions, without more, do not persuade us
that that the recited single database schema must be interpreted to require
either providing real-time synchronized data update or direct table
management. Moreover, as discussed above, we agree with the Examiner
that R/3 Online Documentation teaches providing real-time synchronized
data update.
We also agree with the Examiner that ’690 Patent recognizes that a
single, but complex, database schema may be used to automate an overall
business process. Ans. 114, FF12. For example, “FIG 58 (A-C) is a data
model that shows logical relationships between tables that represent different

10
We also note that additional prior art references cited in the Request for Ex
Parte Reexamination (and used by the Examiner for other features) also
support the Examiner’s finding that using the World Wide Web for business
commerce was well-known to skilled artisans at the time of the invention.
See, e.g., SAP R/3 Release 3.1, R/3 on the Internet, Graf & Kidler,
Sackmary; see also App. Br. 31–32 (discussing SAP R/3 Release 3.1).
Appeal 2014-007772
Reexamination Control 90/010,987
Patent 6,115,690

42

functional areas (sales, shipping, purchasing, etc.) of the business.” Ans.
114.
Similarly, “R/3 provides a (relational database) RDBMS that also
includes relationships between tables having data from different areas [SD,
AC, MM, FI, etc., see 3.0E documentation pg. 191] and therefore qualifies
as a single database schema.” Id.; see also Ans. 9. The Patent Owner has not
persuasively shown that either the claim language or the Specification
warrants precluding use of pool or cluster tables. As such, we are not
persuaded of error in the Examiner’s finding that R/3 Online
Documentation’s “automation of an entire enterprise, where a single (and
perhaps complex) database schema is employed to address end-to-end
business processes that involve different business functions/domains across
an enterprise” satisfies the recited single database schema limitation. Id.
Likewise unavailing is the Patent Owner’s argument that the R/3
Online Documentation fails to disclose the “patentee’s four business
domains.” App. Br 42; Reply Br. 12-13. Particularly, Patent Owner
contends that R/3 Online Documentation does not teach data from the
payments domain and “therefore does not disclose automatically reflecting
information in one business domain by modifying information in another
business domain.” App. Br. 42–43.
This argument lacks merit. The Examiner expressly identifies
numerous examples where modifications to a first business domain, dealing
with products, are automatically reflected in a second business domain,
dealing with payments. Ans. 9–10 (citing the R/3 Online Documentation,
pp. 22, 23, 122, 123), FF47, 50-52. For example, R/3 Online
Appeal 2014-007772
Reexamination Control 90/010,987
Patent 6,115,690

43

Documentation describes that “information entered in the sales order is
transferred to subsequent documents which are used to process the business
transaction” such as invoicing during billing. Ans. 10. Additionally, once
the system “confirms that the invoice has been posted….the system updates
sales and distribution, financial accounting (A/R and G/L) as well as
profitability analysis.” Ans. 10 (citing R.3 Online Documentation, p. 22);
see also Ans. 9 (citing R/3 Online Documentation, p. 123)(noting that R/3
Online Documentation teaches a master record that stores data for both the
accounting and the sales and distribution departments to avoid redundancy).
The Patent Owner does not explain why these domains, such as sales
and financial accounting, do not deal with payments as recited in the claim.
While the ’690 Patent identifies accounts receivable and accounts payable as
examples of a payment domain (‘690 Patent, col. 5, ll. 60–61), this does not
then limit the payments domain to only those areas. As such, we are not
persuaded that the R/3 Online Documentation does not teach this limitation.
The Patent Owner also argues that R/3 Online Documentation’s
automatic transferring of data is not “automatically reflecting,” as recited in
the claims, because R/3 Online Documentation’s automatic transferring of
data necessarily creates duplicate copies. App. Br. 43. In other words, the
Patent Owner interprets “automatically reflecting” to preclude duplication.
See also App. Br. 43 (“[c]laim 36 does not call for, but instead excludes,
[R/3 Online Documentation]’s widespread reliance on data duplication.”)
The Patent Owner, however, fails to identify any persuasive support
for this narrow interpretation. We find the Patent Owner’s blanket
Appeal 2014-007772
Reexamination Control 90/010,987
Patent 6,115,690

44

assertions, without more, unavailing.
11
We agree with the Examiner that one
way to “automatically reflect” a modification made in a first business
domain in a second business domain is by automatic updating or
transferring, as taught by R/3 Online Documentation. See Ans. 10.
Moreover, as discussed above, we are not convinced that R/3 Online
Documentation’s passing, transferring, forwarding or updating of data
necessarily requires duplication. For example, R/3 Online Documentation
expressly teaching avoiding redundancy. See Ans. 9 (citing R/3 Online
Documentation, p. 123)(noting that R/3 Online Documentation teaches a
master record that stores data for both the accounting and the sales and
distribution departments to avoid redundancy); Ans. 120 (reiterating that R/3
Online Documentation teaches updating different domains when an invoice
has been posted and exchanging or passing data so that it does not need to be
entered more than once).
Therefore, for at least the reasons discussed above and identified by
the Examiner, we agree that the R/3 Online Documentation and AAPA
render obvious claims 36–39, 41, 42, 58–62, 75, 76, 81, 82, 86, and 88–90,
not argued with particularity. Accordingly, we affirm the rejection.

11
We also not that a broad reasonable interpretation by a skilled artisan of
“reflecting” may be “to express or show” or “to give back an image of;
mirror or reproduce.” See Webster’s New World College Dictionary, 4th
Ed. (1999).
Appeal 2014-007772
Reexamination Control 90/010,987
Patent 6,115,690

45

Claims 45–49 AND 87
12

THE OBVIOUSNESS REJECTION BASED ON THE R/3 RELEASE 3.0E ONLINE
DOCUMENTATION, AAPA, AND DOYLE
We are not persuaded that the Examiner erred in finding claims 45–49
and 87 obvious. Namely, for the reasons discussed above, we find
unpersuasive the Patent Owner’s arguments with respect to Web-commerce,
providing for real-time synchronized data update, and single database
schema. App. Br. 44–45, 47.
Additionally, we find unavailing the Patent Owner’s assertions that
R/3 Online Documentation, AAPA, and Doyle combined fails to teach
maintaining and updating a multi-vendor product list and consolidating
information from different vendors ‘into a common record for display. See
App. Br. 45–46; see also Boulanger Decl. 18. According to the Patent
Owner, R/3 Online Documentation only teaches ranking of vendors of
products purchased.
Because vendors cannot be ranked by unused products,
products supplied by a vendor but not used by an enterprise are
not included. Such ranking also eliminates lower ranked
vendors with the same products, instead of consolidating
products from vendors. As a result, a multivendor product list is
not formed.
App. Br. 45–46. These arguments, though, are not commensurate with the
scope of the claim. Notably, the claims only require retrieving product

12
We note that the rejection of claims 45 and 46 is listed separately from the
rejection of claims 47–49 and 87, nevertheless, the Examiner applies the
same combination of prior art to reject these claims. Compare Ans. 26–31
with Ans. 81–84.
Appeal 2014-007772
Reexamination Control 90/010,987
Patent 6,115,690

46

information from a baseline vendor as well as at least one other vendor.
Thus, it is irrelevant is some vendors are not ranked or eliminated.
Additionally, the Patent Owner maintains that R/3 Online
Documentation provides a static list of available sources, “but does not
dynamically ‘consolidate’ from different vendors ‘into a common
record for display.’ [sic] of any product used or not used by such enterprise,
whenever a user requests such a display.” App. Br. 46. “Dynamically”
consolidating information from different vendors, however, is not required
by the claim.
Contrary to the Patent Owners assertions, R/3 Online Documentation
describes that a multi-vendor list is generated, in ranked form, for specific
materials, i.e. products, is generated. Ans. 28 (citing R/3 Online
Documentation p, 134, 136); see also Ans. 28–29 (citing R/3 Online
Documentation p, 159, 182), FF59. As such, we are not persuaded that the
Examiner erred in finding that R/3 Online Documentation teaches the
disputed limitations.
Moreover, the Patent Owner solely addresses the teaching of R/3
Online Documentation and fails to address the Examiner’s findings and
conclusions of obviousness with respect to Doyle. See Ans. 30–31. For
example, the Examiner finds that Doyle teaches a master item catalog that is
created from product offerings from many vendors and that “[i]t would have
been obvious to one of ordinary skill at the time of the invention to have
created a master item catalog in such a way for an R/3 system described by
[R/3 Online Documentation] so that third-party sales orders could be made
from a multi-vendor, master catalog.” Ans. 30–31. One cannot show
Appeal 2014-007772
Reexamination Control 90/010,987
Patent 6,115,690

47

nonobviousness by attacking references individually where the rejections are
based on combinations of references. See In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 426
(CCPA 1981); In re Merck & Co., Inc., 800 F.2d 1091, 1097 (Fed. Cir.
1986). As such, we find Patent Owner’s arguments unavailing.
The Patent Owner further contends that R/3 Online Documentation
does not “disclose the concept of a baseline vendor.” App. Br. 46. We
disagree. The ’690 Patent description of baseline and baseline vendor is
consistent with the Examiner’s findings that a baseline vendor is a first
vendor.
In particular, the ’690 Patent describes that “[a] baseline is a
collection of products that function as a standard of comparison” and “[o]n
the vendor side, one vendor is selected to serve as the baseline vendor.”
’690 Patent, col. 19, ll. 17–19. While the’690 Patent notes that the base
vendor will typically have certain characteristics, these characteristics are
neither required nor inherent to the claimed baseline vendor. See ’690
Patent, col. 19, ll. 26–29, FF18.
Therefore, for at least the reasons discussed above and identified by
the Examiner, we agree that the R/3 Online Documentation, AAPA and
Doyle combined renders claims 45–49 and 87 obvious. Accordingly, we
affirm the rejection.
Claims 22 and 74
THE OBVIOUSNESS REJECTION BASED ON R/3 ONLINE DOCUMENTATION
AND SACKMARY
Based on the record before us, we find that the Examiner did not err in
rejecting claims 22 and 74 as obvious. Namely, for the reasons discussed
Appeal 2014-007772
Reexamination Control 90/010,987
Patent 6,115,690

48

above, we find unpersuasive Patent Owner’s arguments with respect to
global computer network. See also Ans. 123.
The Patent Owner next contends that the rejection fails to show “that
it would have been obvious to modify R/3 Online Documentation to enable
return requests over the World Wide Web.” App. Br. 48. Similarly to the
arguments discussed above, the Patent Owner relies on generic statements
about R/3 Release 3.0E system rather than considering the teachings of the
system in view of Sackmary. The Examiner relies on Sackmary for teaching
the Web limitations. See Ans. 65–66. Specifically, the Examiner states
Sackmary teaches a product return system that is
accessible over the World Wide Web (WWW) where return
requests can be made [pg. 106 col 2 lines 17-22]. It would have
been obvious to one of ordinary skill at the time of the
invention to have used a global network such as the WWW to
enable access to the return features.
Id. (bracketing in the original). The Patent Owner fails to
persuasively address these findings. Moreover, we find the Patent
Owner’s argument that it would not have been obvious at the time of
the invention to modify the R/3 system to be web-enabled because
SAP had not done it yet unavailing. Reply Br 36.
According to the Patent Owner, R/3 Online Documentation,
AAPA, and Doyle combined also fails to teach evaluating a request
based on ‘“stored criteria,’ meaning an automated returns evaluation
process.” App. Br. 48; see also Reply Br. 14. The Patent Owner then
points to R/3 Online Documentation’s description of having to
manually enter the reasons for rejection to show that R/3 Online
Documentation does not teach this automated evaluation process. Id.
Appeal 2014-007772
Reexamination Control 90/010,987
Patent 6,115,690

49

Claims 22 and 74, though, are not limited to reasons for return
but more broadly recites “evaluating the request based on . . . stored
criteria in accordance with the return type.” As the Examiner points
out, R/3 Online Documentation teaches evaluating based on a
deadline that requires at least two stored criteria, namely a date
purchased and a date returned. Ans. 66, FF57-58. We are not
persuaded of error in these findings.
Patent Owner’s argument that the combination of R/3 Online
Documentation and Sackmary fail to teach “automatically assigning and
communicating” a return authorization number is likewise unavailing.
According to the Patent Owner, R/3 Online Documentation does not even
teach generating a return authorization number and, thus, cannot teach
assigning or communicating such a number over the internet. App. Br. 48.
With respect to Sackmary, the Patent Owner contends that Sackmary’s
assigning of RMA lack evaluating whether applicable criteria are met. Id.
The Examiner, though, relies on Sackmary to teach automatically
assigning a RMA number and communicating it through the world wide web
and further relies on R/3 Online Documentation, which describes creating
Return Documents for authorized returns. Ans. 67, 124. Thus, the Patent
Owners arguments do not consider the combination as presented by the
Examiner, but instead challenge the applied teachings individually. One
cannot show nonobviousness by attacking references individually where the
rejections are based on combinations of references. See In re Keller, 642
F.2d 413, 426 (CCPA 1981); In re Merck & Co., Inc., 800 F.2d 1091, 1097
(Fed. Cir. 1986).
Appeal 2014-007772
Reexamination Control 90/010,987
Patent 6,115,690

50

We also agree with the Examiner that a skilled artisan at the time of
the invention would have recognized that the created Return Documents of
the R/3 System would have a database identifier so the system can later use
the information. See Ans. 67. As such, we are not persuaded that the
Examiner erred in finding that the combination of R/3 Online
Documentation and Sackmary fails to teach the disputed limitations.
Therefore, for at least the reasons discussed above and cited by the
Examiner, we agree that the R/3 Online Documentation and Sackmary
combined render claims 22 and 74 obvious. Accordingly, we affirm the
rejection.

Claims 81–83, 86, and 88–90
THE OBVIOUSNESS REJECTION BASED ON THE R/3 RELEASE 3.0E ONLINE
DOCUMENTATION, AAPA, AND GRAF/KIDLER ARTICLE
We are not persuaded that the Examiner erred in finding claims 81–
83, 86, and 88–90 obvious. Namely, for the reasons discussed above, we
find unpersuasive Patent Owner’s arguments with respect to the “Web”
limitations and providing real-time synchronized data update. See App. Br.
50–52.
Additionally, we disagree with Patent Owner that the cited
combination fails to teach “tracking each significant event in the order
fulfillment process,” as recited in the claims. App. Br. 51. In particular,
Patent Owner asserts that R/3 Online Documentation’s history of an order is
not tracking because it reviews what happened in the past. Id. The
Examiner responds by pointing out that there is no language of the claim that
Appeal 2014-007772
Reexamination Control 90/010,987
Patent 6,115,690

51

relates to or restricts the timing of the tracking. Ans. 116; see also 23.
Moreover, the Examiner’s interpretation is consistent with the Specification.
See ’690 Patent, col. 16, ll. 22–30 (describing that a customer may track a
variety of events including return and service history).
As such, we are not persuaded that the Examiner erred in finding
claims 81–83, 86, and 88–90 obvious. Accordingly, we affirm the rejection.

Claims 63 and 64
THE ANTICIPATION REJECTION BASED ON R/3 ONLINE DOCUMENTATION
Patent Owner presents no arguments, other than the challenge to R/3
Online Documentation as prior art, in response to the anticipation rejection
of claims 63 and 64. While Patent Owner’s argument that the claimed
relational database management system
13
must provide for real-time
synchronized data update may apply to these claims, for the reasons
discussed above, we find these arguments unpersuasive. As such, for the
reasons outlined above and set forth by the Examiner, we are not persuaded
that the Examiner erred in rejecting claims 63 and 64 as anticipated.
Accordingly, we affirm the rejection.

13
We note that claim 63 recites a relational database system and claim 64
recites relational database business automation system.
Appeal 2014-007772
Reexamination Control 90/010,987
Patent 6,115,690

52

Claims 6, 10, 13, 14, 23–29, 33, 34, 43, 44, 50–53, 56, 57, 65–73, and 77–80
REMAINING OBVIOUSNESS REJECTIONS
Patent Owner presents no additional arguments for the remaining
claims.
14
For the reasons outlined above and set forth by the Examiner, we
are not persuaded that the Examiner erred in rejecting these claims.
Accordingly, we affirm the remaining obviousness rejections.

CONCLUSIONS15
We conclude that:
(1) the R/3 Online Documentation does qualify as prior art; and
(2) the Examiner did not err in rejecting claims 1–90 under 35 U.S.C.
§103(a) as being unpatentable over the cited combinations of prior
art.

DECISION
The Examiner’s decisions to reject claims 1–90 are affirmed.
Requests for extensions of time in this ex parte reexamination
proceeding are governed by 37 C.F.R. § 1.550(c). See 37 C.F.R. § 41.50(f).

14
We again note that arguments presented for the first time in the Reply
Brief are waived as untimely. See Ex parte Borden, 93 USPQ2d 1473, 1474
(BPAI 2010) (informative) (“[The reply brief [is not] an opportunity to make
arguments that could have been made in the principal brief on appeal to
rebut the Examiner’s rejections, but were not.”).
15
Because we affirm the Examiner’s obviousness rejections of the claims,
we do not reach the alternative anticipation rejections. See In re Gleave, 560
F.3d 1331, 1338 (Fed. Cir. 2009) (declining to address a rejection of certain
claims after upholding a rejection of those claims on other grounds).
Appeal 2014-007772
Reexamination Control 90/010,987
Patent 6,115,690

53

AFFIRMED

alw

PATENT OWNER:

Wagner, Anderson & Bright, PC
3541 Ocean View Blvd.
Glendale, CA 91208

THIRD-PARTY REQUESTER:

Klarquist Sparkman, LLP
One World Trade Center
Suite 1600
121 S.W. Salmon Street
Portland, OR 97204