Ex Parte 6947903 et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Sep 23, 2013

95000557 (P.T.A.B. Sep. 23, 2013)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
United States Patent and Trademark Office
Address: COMMISSIONER FOR PATENTS
P.O. Box 1450
Alexandria, Virginia 22313-1450
www.uspto.gov
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE FIRST NAMED INVENTOR ATTORNEY DOCKET NO. CONFIRMATION NO.
95/000,557 07/16/2010 6947903 09449.0023
/2766.1001-007
4089
21005 7590 09/23/2013
HAMILTON, BROOK, SMITH & REYNOLDS, P.C.
530 VIRGINIA ROAD
P.O. BOX 9133
CONCORD, MA 01742-9133
EXAMINER
DOERRLER, WILLIAM CHARLES
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
3993
MAIL DATE DELIVERY MODE
09/23/2013 PAPER
Please find below and/or attached an Office communication concerning this application or proceeding.
The time period for reply, if any, is set in the attached communication.
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
____________________

BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
____________________

SAP AMERICA, INC.
Requestor, Cross-Appellant, Respondent

v.

ELCOMMERCE.COM, INC.
Patent Owner, Appellant, Respondent
____________________

Appeal 2013-007281
Inter partes Reexamination 95/000,557
Patent US 6,947,903 C1
Technology Center 3900
____________________

Before: DANIEL S. SONG, MEREDITH C. PETRAVICK, and
WILLIAM V. SAINDON, Administrative Patent Judges.

SAINDON, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL
Appeal 2013-007281
Reexamination 95/000,557
US 6,947,903 C1
2
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Claims 1-55 are rejected and are the subject of the present appeal.
Patent Owner appeals under 35 U.S.C. §§ 134(b) and 315(a) (2002) from the
rejections of the claims as discussed infra. Requestor cross-appeals under
35 U.S.C. §§ 134(c) and 315(b) (2002) from the Examiner’s withdrawal as
to claims 1-21 and 37 of rejections I-K, X, Y, AA-BB, EE, and FFFF-
HHHHH. Cr. App. Br. Req. 6-9
1
; RAN 90-119, 146-147.
2
We have
jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. §§ 134 and 315. We AFFIRM the Examiner’s
rejection of the appealed claims, and do not reach the issues raised in the
Requestor’s cross-appeal.
Case History
US Patent 6,947,903 B1 (“’903 Patent”) was issued to Brian M. Perry
on September 20, 2005. The ’903 Patent was the subject of ex parte
reexamination 90/009,298, which confirmed the patentability of all claims
without amendment and issued with a reexamination certificate on April 6,
2010. We have been apprised of the following judicial proceedings
involving the ’903 Patent (Resp. Br. Req. 1; Resp. Br. PO 1):
Title Case No. & Forum Notes
elcommerce.com, Inc. v.
SAP AG and SAP
America, Inc.
No. 2:07-cv-383-TJW
(E.D. Tex.)
Transferred to E.D. Pa.,
below

1
Requestor additionally cross-appealed the Examiner’s non-adoption based
on no Substantial New Question of Patentability for rejections A, B, G, H,
and WW (Cr. App. Br. Req. 10) but later withdrew the cross-appeal as to
those rejections (Reb. Br. Req. 6).
2
Because the Examiner’s Answer mailed January 25, 2013 merely
incorporates the Right to Appeal Notice (RAN) mailed March 9, 2012, we
refer to RAN in this decision.

Appeal 2013-007281
Reexamination 95/000,557
US 6,947,903 C1
3
elcommerce.com, Inc. v.
SAP AG and SAP
America, Inc.
No. 2:09cv04458-JD
(E.D. Pa)
Final Judgment
rendered
3
, appealed to
Fed. Cir.
elcommerce.com, Inc. v.
SAP AG and SAP
America, Inc.
No. 2011-1369
(Fed. Cir.)
Oral Hearing held
5/8/2012

We held an Oral Hearing with both parties present on September 11,
2013, the transcript of which will be entered into the electronic record in due
course.

The Claimed Subject Matter
The disclosed invention generally relates to monitoring supply chain
activity at various supply chain sites by taking whatever information is
available, without having to rely on standardized computer systems or data
formats at the sites. ’903 Patent, col. 1, ll. 61-64. As such, the disclosed
invention pulls data from each of these separate systems and translates the
data into a common format. Id., col. 1, l. 64 to col. 2, l. 6.
Claims 1, 22, 37, 38, 50, 53, and 54 are independent. Claim 1,
reproduced below, is illustrative of the claimed subject matter.
1. A method of monitoring supply chain activity, comprising:
scanning for changed supply-related data at independent supply
chain sites within the supply chain;
extracting the supply-related data at the independent supply
chain, the data being maintained in plural formats at the supply
chain sites, where each of the supply chain sites represents an
independent entity in the supply chain;

3
The judgment defined various terms of claims 1, 22, 37, 38, 50, 53, and 54
and declared claims 22, 25, and 37 indefinite for lack of corresponding
structure as required by 35 U.S.C. § 112, sixth paragraph. 2011 WL 722267
(E.D. Pa.) (Order); 2011 WL 710487 (E.D. Pa) (Memorandum).
Appeal 2013-007281
Reexamination 95/000,557
US 6,947,903 C1
4
translating the extracted data into a common format;
uploading the extracted data from each supply chain site to a
data collection site, the data collection site collecting the extracted
data; and
upon a request from a user associated with one of the supply
chain sites, formatting, at the data collection site, a portion of the
collected data, retrieved from one of the supply chain sites other
than the site of the user, into one of a plurality of views, responsive
to criteria selected by the user, for presentation to the user, the
portion of formatted data being dependent on access rights granted
to the user’s supply chain site, and publishing the formatted data
view to the user's supply chain site;
at the data collection site, monitoring inbound data from
multiple supply chain sites;
detecting a problem condition if there is a surplus or shortage in
the collected data retrieved from at least one of the supply chain
sites other than the site of the user; and
responding to the problem condition by asserting an alert to the
user, where the alert indicates a problem condition associated with
at least one of the supply chain sites other than the site of the user.

Rejections & Evidence
Requestor initially proposed 122 rejections (A-RRRRR); Patent
Owner appeals the Examiner’s adoption, in some form, of the following
rejections
4
:
 I, J, M, N, R, X, Z, AA, CC, and EE (“R/3 Obviousness
Rejections”)
 XX-III (“XHQ Obviousness Rejections”)
 JJJ-EEEE (“Poirier Obviousness Rejections”)
 FFFF-SSSS (“Praxis Obviousness Rejections”)
 TTTT-BBBBB (“Bellini Obviousness Rejections”)

4
A full listing and the status of all rejections can be found at RAN pp. 3-14.
Appeal 2013-007281
Reexamination 95/000,557
US 6,947,903 C1
5
App. Br. PO 8-16. Of the above rejections, the Poirier Obviousness
Rejections address each claim of the ’903 Patent, and because our
affirmance of these rejections is dispositive of the outcome of the appeal, we
address only these rejections in our decision. The Examiner adopted the
Poirier Obviousness Rejections as proposed, and incorporated by reference
those rejections from the Request. See RAN 32-47; Req. 1019-1327
5
.
The Poirier Obviousness Rejections are as follows:
JJJ. Claims 1-55 as obvious over Poirier
6
and Devlin
7
.
KKK. Claims 1-55 as obvious over Poirier, Devlin, and Kimball
8
.
LLL. Claims 1-5 as obvious over Poirier, Devlin, and Widom
9
.
MMM. Claims 1-5 as obvious over Poirier, Devlin, and Liu
10
.
NNN. Claims 1-55 as obvious over Poirier, Devlin, and Salvo
11
.
OOO. Claims 1-55 as obvious over Poirier, Devlin, and Brockman
12
.
PPP. Claims 1-55 as obvious over Poirier, Devlin, and Anand
13
.
QQQ. Claims 17, 25, 43, and 44 as obvious over Poirier, Devlin, and
Notani
14
.
RRR. Claims 1-55 as obvious over Poirier and Kimball.

5
Because the Examiner adopted and incorporated by reference the proposed
rejections, our citations of the Examiner’s rejection will typically be to the
Request.
6
Charles C. Poirier & Stephen E. Reiter, “Supply Chain Optimization”
(Berrett-Koehler Pubs., Inc. 1996).
7
Barry Devlin, “Data Warehouse from Architecture to Implementation”
(Cote et. al, eds. Addison-Wesley 1997).
8
Ralph Kimball, “The Data warehouse Toolkit” (Robert Elliot, ed. John
Wiley & Sons, Inc. 1996).
9
Jennifer Widom, “Research Problems in Data Warehousing,” Proc. 4th
Int’l Conf. on Information and Knowledge Mgmt, pp. 25-30 (1995).
10
Jixue Liu and Millist Vincent, “An Architecture for Data Warehouse
Systems,” Proc. of IEE TENCON ’98, Global Connectivity in Energy,
Computer, Communication and Control (IEEE Dec. 1998).
11
US 6,341,271 B1, iss. Jan. 22, 2002.
12
US 5,884,300, iss. Mar. 16, 1999.
13
US 5,721,903, iss. Feb. 24, 1998.
14
US 6,119,149, iss. Sep. 12, 2000.
Appeal 2013-007281
Reexamination 95/000,557
US 6,947,903 C1
6
SSS. Claims 1-55 as obvious over Poirier, Kimball, and Salvo.
TTT. Claims 1-55 as obvious over Poirier, Kimball, and Anand.
UUU. Claims 1-55 as obvious over Poirier, Kimball, and Notani.
VVV. Claims 1-55 as obvious over Poirier, Inmon
15
, and Anand.
WWW. Claims 17, 25, 43, and 44 as obvious over Poirier, Inmon, Anand,
and Notani.
XXX. Claims 1-55 as obvious over Poirier, Inmon, and Devlin.
YYY. Claims 17, 25, 43, and 44 as obvious over Poirier, Inmon, and
Devlin, and Notani.
ZZZ. Claims 1-55 as obvious over Poirier, Inmon, and Salvo.
AAAA. Claims 17, 25, 43, and 44 as obvious over Poirier, Inmon, Salvo,
and Notani.
BBBB. Claims 1-55 as obvious over Poirier, Widom, and Anand.
CCCC. Claims 17, 25, 43, and 44 as obvious over Poirier, Widom, Anand,
and Notani.
DDDD. Claims 1-55 as obvious over Poirier, Liu, and Anand
EEEE. Claims 17, 25, 43, and 44 as obvious over Poirier, Liu, Anand,
and Notani.

OPINION
Poirier Obviousness Rejections
We have reviewed the Poirier Obviousness Rejections and adopt the
findings and conclusions therein as our own. In addition, we consider the
Examiner’s response (RAN 141-143, 151) and Requestor’s comments
(Resp. Br. Req. 53-63) sufficient to rebut Patent Owner’s contentions of
error (App. Br. PO 94-115). What follows, therefore, is an overview of the
most relevant art and rejections, and our elaboration on a few issues. We
first turn to the most discussed prior art.

15
William H. Inmon, Building the Data Warehouse, (John Wiley & Sons,
Inc. 1992, 1993).
Appeal 2013-007281
Reexamination 95/000,557
US 6,947,903 C1
7
Prior Art
Poirier: Supply Chain Monitoring Using a Central Data Warehouse
16

The Poirier reference is a book for those interested in “learning how to
… create a more effective supply chain system.” Poirier, xiii. Poirier
describes that successful leaders in this effort are “[b]uilding alliances with
suppliers … to work out improvements to forecasting, order fulfillment,
planning, scheduling …, and inventory control” and “[l]ooking to the
information technology function to provide links across the full supply
chain.” Id. at 19-20. Poirier’s idea of building alliances using information
technology as a link is embodied in a central data warehouse that collects
information among the independent supply chain sites. Id. at 58 (“This data
warehouse is absolutely critical to the success of the inter-enterprise network
system.”). This system is exemplified in Figure 3.1 of Poirier:

Figure 3.1 of Poirier depicts an inter-enterprise supply chain model in which
suppliers, plants, distributors, and retailers share inventory, promotional,

16
The Examiner’s rejections typically include citations to additional portions
of the references. Our citations to the references in this section of the
opinion are exemplary and not intended to suggest those other citations are
not as relevant.
Appeal 2013-007281
Reexamination 95/000,557
US 6,947,903 C1
8
forecast, and sale data using a common supply chain data management
system.
Poirier monitors supply chain activity, gathering required information
and checking for certain conditions that may impact the supply chain.
Poirier 56, fig. 3.1, and 58 (discussing item “trigger” levels monitored by the
database “to meet consumption demands,” i.e., to prevent shortages); see
also Req. 1022-23. The data may need to be translated from various
proprietary source formats. Poirier 58 (the information “must be accessible .
. . in a compatible format” and “any necessary translations must be made in
terms of products, sku’s or item-specific information”), and 65; see also
Req. 1028. Poirier describes monitoring incoming data and detecting
problem conditions, generating an alert if necessary. Poirier 58, 60
(“trigger” levels), and 65 (discussing “trigger” of activities based on
monitoring the information shared between the independent entities); see
also Req. 1036.
Devlin: Data Warehouse Guidebook
The Devlin reference is an in-depth guidebook intended for
information systems personnel to “understand, design, and build a data
warehouse.” Devlin 2. Devlin describes various methods for capturing and
moving data from a data source to a data warehouse. Devlin 177-194
(discussing various considerations and techniques when capturing data from
various data sources, including trigger capture, log capture, and file
comparison capture), and 147, figure 7-10 (depicting the logical architecture
of the data warehouse); see also Req. 890-891, 893, 896. This often requires
a data format change. Devlin 205 (discussing transformation of data
formats); see also Req. 893-95. Devlin describes access control to the
Appeal 2013-007281
Reexamination 95/000,557
US 6,947,903 C1
9
database (Devlin 148, “security is required to control access to and use of
the data it contains” and 398, discussing hierarchical access rules; see also
Req. 900) as well as the provision of views published in various formats
(Devlin 261-62, discussing the business information interface, which
“provides the function needed to select data, perform any required analysis,
store the results …, and produce reports in any required format,” and 267,
“structuring and presentation function”; see also Req. 899-900). Lastly,
Devlin describes monitoring inbound data from sites and alerting a user to a
detected problem condition. Devlin 267, “procedures that are automatically
triggered when certain events or conditions occur”; see also Req. 901-02,
903-04.
Kimball: Data Warehouse Guidebook
The Kimball reference is similar to Devlin, in that it is a guidebook
intended for information systems personnel involved with data warehouses.
Kimball, xv. Because the teachings of Kimball are largely cumulative to
those of Devlin, we need not discuss the details of Kimball. See also Req.
983-1019.
Inmon: Data Warehouse Guidebook
The Inmon reference is similar to Devlin, in that it is a guidebook
intended for system builders “in a modern data processing environment.”
Inmon, xi. Because the teachings of Inmon are largely cumulative to those
of Devlin, we need not discuss the details of Inmon. See also Req. 1136-
1155.
Widom: Data Warehouse Architecture
The Widom reference is an academic paper proposing a data
warehousing architecture. Data from various heterogeneous information
Appeal 2013-007281
Reexamination 95/000,557
US 6,947,903 C1
10
sources are extracted, translated, and filtered for storage in a central
repository. Widom 25. A wrapper/monitor component is associated with a
data source and will translate formats and automatically detect changes of
interest. Id. at 26 (“the wrapper component . . . is responsible for translating
information from the native format . . . while the monitor is responsible for
automatically detecting changes of interest in the source data and reporting
them to the integrator”) and 27 (discussing translation and change detection
in further detail). An integrator collects the data from the wrapper/monitor
and sends the data to the data warehouse. Id. at 26. Figure 1 of Widom,
reproduced below, graphically depicts the information source,
wrapper/monitor, integrator, and data warehouse relationship just described.

The remaining references are not relied upon as substantially as the
above references. We will discuss the relevant disclosures of the other
secondary references as necessary.
Overview of the Poirier Obviousness Rejections
The Poirier Obviousness rejections each follow a similar pattern:
Poirier is found to describe the limitation, or if not, or to the extent further
details are required, these details are provided by one or more other
Appeal 2013-007281
Reexamination 95/000,557
US 6,947,903 C1
11
references (Devlin, Widom, Inmon, or Kimball, primarily). The rejections
of the independent claim 1, for example, address each limitation and provide
a detailed analysis of the teachings of Poirier and the secondary references,
the manner in which they are combined, and a reasoned explanation for that
combination. The claims, therefore, are addressed using a combination of
teachings from the references.
Poirier and Devlin
The Examiner’s rejections involving Poirier and Devlin rely on
Poirier to teach an “inter-enterprise supply chain system utilizing a central
data warehouse to store supply chain information.” Req. 1019. In addition,
the Examiner finds that Poirier acknowledges that the “data warehouse is
absolutely critical to the success of the interenterprise network system.” Id.
at 1020. Accordingly, the Examiner finds that one of ordinary skill in the art
would look to well-known data warehousing features such as those disclosed
in Devlin. Id. The Examiner notes that Devlin likewise recognizes the
importance of a data warehouse to share data in inter-enterprise
environments. Id. (citing Devlin 403, “Inter-enterprise data warehouses”).
Accordingly, in addition to the suggestions to combine features of the supply
chain monitoring system of Poirier with the data warehousing system of
Devlin found in each reference, the Examiner concludes that such
combinations are also merely the combination of familiar elements
according to known methods. Id. (citing KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550
U.S. 398, 401 (2007) (“The combination of familiar elements according to
known methods is likely to be obvious”); see also KSR at 417 (“if a
technique has been used to improve one device, and a person of ordinary
skill in the art would recognize that it would improve similar devices in the
Appeal 2013-007281
Reexamination 95/000,557
US 6,947,903 C1
12
same way, using the technique is obvious unless its actual application is
beyond his or her skill”). This general rationale to combine is bolstered in
each rejection when the Examiner discusses the combination as it pertains to
a particular limitation. As such, the Examiner has set forth a general reason
to combine the teachings of the references as well as reasons to combine the
teachings of the references in view of the particular modifications proposed.
As explained in further detail below, Patent Owner only challenges the
reason to combine at the general level; a challenge of each particular
modification is not cogently made.
Poirier and Kimball
The Examiner finds that Kimball teaches that it is more difficult to
collect data in a value chain when the entities therein are separate
businesses. Req. 1088 (citing Kimball 83). Kimball discusses the
“attraction of assembling a value chain of databases.” Kimball 83. The
Examiner thus finds explicit motivation to combine the Kimball database
with Poirier’s centralized data warehouse for independent entities, to
facilitate Poirier’s above-noted need for a data warehouse and to solve
Kimball’s problem of assembling the databases of separate entities. See
Req. 1088. In addition, the Examiner notes that using the data warehousing
techniques of Kimball is merely the combination of familiar elements
according to known methods (i.e., using a known data warehouse as called
for in Poirier). Id.
Poirier and Inmon/Widom/Liu/Anand
In general, Inmon, Widom, Liu, and Anand teach data warehousing
techniques, and the Examiner’s reason to modify Poirier’s teachings is
because Poirier emphasizes the need for a data warehouse and these
Appeal 2013-007281
Reexamination 95/000,557
US 6,947,903 C1
13
references provide such a data warehouse. See Req. 1134-35 (Inmon), 1254-
1255 (Widom/Anand), and 1290-1291 (Liu/Anand). Accordingly, the
Examiner asserts that such a combination is merely the combination of
familiar elements according to known methods.
Patent Owner’s Contentions against the Poirier Obviousness Rejections
Patent Owner begins by arguing Poirier in isolation (App. Br. PO 96-
109), then argues the secondary references in isolation (id. at 109-113), and
then argues the rationales in isolation (id. at 113-114). In addressing Poirier,
Patent Owner argues independent claims 1 and 37 as a group, of which
claim 1 will be representative, and then separately argues independent
claims 22, 38, 50, 53, and 54. Id. at 96-109. Patent Owner does not make
separate arguments with respect to the various Poirier Obviousness
Rejections when addressing any given claim. We will address the
independent claims first, and then address the dependent claims.
Claim 1
As pointed out by Requestor, Patent Owner’s contentions do not
address the actual rejections but rather focus on the individual references.
Resp. Br. Req. 55. Although the 22 Poirier Obviousness Rejections include
9 other references, these secondary references are argued in isolation. See
App. Br. PO 109-113. It is well-settled that arguing references in isolation is
ineffective in establishing non-obviousness when the rejection is based on
combination of the teachings of the references. See, e.g., In re Merck & Co.
Inc., 800 F.2d 1091, 1097 (Fed. Cir. 1986). The Examiner’s findings with
respect to claim 1 and each method step therein rely on a combination of
teachings. See Req. 1021-1038 (Poirier/Devlin), 1054-1059
(Poirier/Devlin/Kimball), 1062-1065 (Poirier/Devlin/Widom), 1066-1069
Appeal 2013-007281
Reexamination 95/000,557
US 6,947,903 C1
14
(Poirier/Devlin/Liu), 1071-1074 (Poirier/Devlin/Salvo), 1076-1078
(Poirier/Devlin/Brockman), 1080-1084 (Poirier/Devlin/Anand), 1089-1106
(Poirier/Kimball), 1121-1124 (Poirier/Kimball/Salvo), 1126-1130
(Poirier/Kimball/Anand), 1135-1155 (Poirier/Inmon/Anand), 1173-1199
(Poirier/Inmon/Devlin), 1220-1237 (Poirier/Inmon/Salvo), 1255-1273
(Poirier/Widom/Anand), and 1291-1310 (Poirier/Liu/Anand); see also
Exhibit CC5 1-122 (claim chart for Poirier rejections). Patent Owner does
not cogently address the limitations of claim 1 with respect to these
proposed combinations of the prior art.
Instead, Patent Owner routinely criticizes Poirier for not appreciating
the “inventive concept.” See, e.g., App. Br. PO 98, 99, 102, 104. However,
the Supreme Court has held that it is error to “hold[] that courts and patent
examiners should look only to the problem the patentee was trying to solve.”
KSR, 550 U.S. at 420; see also Kalman v. Kimberly-Clark Corp., 713 F.2d
760, 772 (Fed. Cir. 1983). Instead, what is relevant is whether the rejection
shows that the claimed subject matter would have been obvious to a person
of ordinary skill in the art. In this case, even if Poirier did not appreciate a
particular limitation in the exact manner claimed, the Examiner has proposed
several findings with respect to the secondary references to teach various
limitations. As such, Patent Owner’s contention that Poirier does not
appreciate the “inventive concept” does not apprise us of error in the
Examiner’s rejections, as it does not address the particular rejections.
To the extent Patent Owner discusses any particular limitation in the
claim, Patent Owner merely asserts that Poirier does not teach the limitation.
See, e.g., App. Br. PO 97 (first full paragraph, listing various claim
limitations and benefits thereof, and concluding “This arrangement of
Appeal 2013-007281
Reexamination 95/000,557
US 6,947,903 C1
15
features used to create a system of monitoring independent sites is not taught
by Poirier”). In addition to the above-noted problems with arguing
references in isolation, Patent Owner is merely pointing out claim limitations
and asserting the prior art does not teach them, without explaining what gaps
exist between the claims and the art underpinning the rejections of those
claims. See In re Jung, 637 F.3d 1356, 1365 (Fed. Cir. 2011); In re Lovin,
652 F.3d 1349 (Fed. Cir. 2011). While it is true the prior art rejections must
address each claim limitation, “this is not an ipsissimis verbis test.” In re
Bond 910 F.2d 831, 832 (Fed. Cir. 1990). As such, merely identifying that
the exact language is not found in the references verbatim is not persuasive.
In view of the Examiner’s extensive findings regarding Poirier and the
secondary references, Patent Owner’s allegations fail to apprise us of
reversible error in the factual findings that underpin the rejections of claim 1,
or the conclusions relying thereon.
For these reasons, the vast majority of Patent Owner’s contentions
regarding claim 1 fail. The combination of the Examiner’s and Requestor’s
responses, as noted above, generally refutes Patent Owner’s positions with
respect to the Poirier Obviousness Rejections. The only issue we separately
address with respect to Poirier is Patent Owner’s contention that Poirier
teaches away from the claimed solution. See, e.g., App. Br. PO 95-96.
Does Poirier Teach Away from the Claimed Solution?
Patent Owner contends that Poirier “teaches away from the claimed
solution” because it discloses a method that “requires business process
[re]engineering” while the claimed solution “helps avoid such business
process [re]engineering.” App. Br. PO 96.
Appeal 2013-007281
Reexamination 95/000,557
US 6,947,903 C1
16
When considering a “teaching away” argument “the nature of the
teaching is highly relevant.” In re Gurley, 27 F.3d 551, 553 (Fed. Cir.
1994). Teaching away requires a reference to actually criticize, discredit, or
discourage investigation into the claimed solution, or otherwise to lead a
person in a divergent direction from the path taken by the inventor. In re
Fulton, 391 F.3d 1195, 1201 (Fed. Cir. 2004). If there are tradeoffs
involved, regarding features, costs, manufacturability, or the like, such do
not necessarily prevent the proposed combination. See Medichem, S.A. v.
Rolabo, S.L., 437 F.3d 1157, 1165 (Fed. Cir. 2006) (“a given course of
action often has simultaneous advantages and disadvantages, and this does
not necessarily obviate motivation to combine.”); Winner Int'l Royalty Corp.
v. Wang, 202 F.3d 1340, 1349 n.8 (Fed. Cir. 2000) (“The fact that the
motivating benefit comes at the expense of another benefit, however, should
not nullify its use as a basis to modify the disclosure of one reference with
the teachings of another. Instead, the benefits, both lost and gained, should
be weighed against one another.”).
In this case, we do not find Poirier to teach away from the claimed
invention. First, Patent Owner has not explained how the claimed invention
precludes business process reengineering, as we see no such limitation in the
claims. See also Resp. Br. Req. 55. Second, as the Examiner found, Poirier
does teach accessing information using terms compatible with each internal
system (i.e., using the existing system without the reengineering Patent
Owner alleges). RAN 142 (“the system ‘demands that the information be
accessed in terms compatible with each user’s internal information
system.’”) (citing Poirier 65). Accordingly, practicing the teachings of
Poirier does not necessitate a retooling of back end data systems, as Patent
Appeal 2013-007281
Reexamination 95/000,557
US 6,947,903 C1
17
Owner alleges. See App. Br. PO 96. Third, the Examiner’s rejections
include teachings from other references, including, for example, Devlin and
Widom, which leave back end data formats intact by transforming the data
received therefrom (i.e., not changing the data at the source but rather
whatever data is received). See, e.g., Devlin 122 (“converts data as received
from the source”) (emphasis added); Widom 26 (“[t]he wrapper component .
. . is responsible for translating information from the native format of the
source into the format and data model used by the warehousing system”).
Fourth, we see no practical difference between “business process
reengineering” and practicing the invention in the ’903 Patent. In essence,
“business process reengineering” is merely a label for something that
happens all the time – process improvement. See Poirier 130. Reviewing
these passages of Poirier, it does not appear that business process
reengineering means changing the way a business stores its information
(although it could). Instead, it could be a change to a way the business
shares its information with suppliers. As such, the ’903 Patent’s invention is
itself business process reengineering, by changing the process businesses use
to share information; such information, and access thereto, being now
provided by the independent businesses to the data collection site.
Accordingly, in view of the above, Poirier does not teach away from
the invention claimed.

Appeal 2013-007281
Reexamination 95/000,557
US 6,947,903 C1
18
Secondary References Used in Rejecting Claim 1
Patent Owner addresses the secondary references in isolation. App.
Br. PO 109-113. We address Patent Owner’s discussion of each in turn.
Devlin
As with Poirier, Patent Owner argues Devlin in isolation. App. Br.
PO 109. Patent Owner does not separately address the various rejections in
which Poirier and Devlin are utilized in combination. Instead, Patent Owner
sets forth arguments regarding Devlin (1) not being directed to a supply
chain and (2) teaching away.
Patent Owner first argues that Devlin’s inter-enterprise data
warehouse is “unrelated” to the claimed system of “monitoring independent
supply chain sites” or “supply chain monitoring.” App. Br. PO 109. These
arguments are unpersuasive because the Examiner relies on Poirier to teach
the supply chain monitoring aspects of the claim. See, e.g., Req. 1022-21 (in
Poirier, an inter-enterprise “data warehouse can be monitored in order to
ensure proper inventory levels, where suppliers are alerted in the event . . .
[of] a shortage.”); see also Poirier, fig. 3.1 (depicting the monitoring of a
supply chain). In our overview of Devlin above, we explained how Devlin’s
teachings are applied with respect to gathering the data, translating, and
storing it, for example, rather than specifically the context in which the data
is gathered, etc., which is instead taught by Poirier. Accordingly, Patent
Owner is arguing the references in isolation rather than in view of the
proposed combinations.
Patent Owner next alleges that Devlin teaches away from inter-
enterprise data warehouses because, on that subject, Devlin explains that
there are “issues” and “significant legal and competitive considerations”
Appeal 2013-007281
Reexamination 95/000,557
US 6,947,903 C1
19
with implementation. App. Br. PO 109. The portion of Devlin discussed by
Patent Owner is in the chapter called “Looking to the future,” which
suggests that “the opportunity exists to treat internal [data warehouses] and
those in other companies as peers.” Devlin 403. Devlin cautions that such
data sharing has “significant legal and competitive considerations” and that,
due to differences in data warehouses, “there must exist a defined and
automated transformation process between the different parts.” Id. Devlin
thus concludes, “inter-enterprise data warehouses will be relatively
uncommon, except between those companies who share a substantial and
long-term cooperative business arrangement.” Id.
The Examiner finds no such teaching away in these passages and
instead characterizes these passages as “cautions.” RAN 139. The
Examiner also explains that Devlin is merely explaining that “the parties
may not desire all information to be shared” and finds that supply chains
have “a substantial and long-term cooperative business arrangement.” Id. at
32. Requestor comments that “[s]imply because Devlin identifies certain
challenges associated with inter-enterprise data warehouses does not mean
that they are discouraged.” Resp. Br. Req. 22 (cited id. at 57).
We do not find Devlin to teach away from the proposed combination.
First, Poirier specifically requests a data warehouse. Poirier 58 (a “data
warehouse is absolutely critical to the success of the interenterprise network
system [herein]”). Second, the forward-looking passage in Devlin devoted
to inter-enterprise data warehousing merely suggests potential pitfalls. The
nature of these pitfalls is with respect to legal and competitive reasons, not
technical. See RAN 32; see also Medichem, 437 F.3d at 1165; Winner Int'l
Royalty Corp, 202 F.3d at n.8. Devlin even suggests the answer: sharing
Appeal 2013-007281
Reexamination 95/000,557
US 6,947,903 C1
20
data works best between those with committed business relationships. See
Devlin 403; RAN 32. Supply chains would be recognized by one of
ordinary skill as an example of a committed business relationship. See, e.g.,
RAN 32 (supply chains include “a substantial and long-term cooperative
business arrangement”); Poirier 19 (describing successful leaders in supply
chain management as “[b]uilding alliances with suppliers”). Naturally, any
business must consider the legal and competitive implications of sharing
their information. However, we see no compelling reason in the record
before us to find that such considerations are preclusive. Indeed, given the
advantages of sharing information with suppliers (e.g., scheduling,
paperwork), these cautions appear to be outweighed by the advantages.
Accordingly, we do not find Devlin to discredit any teaching of Poirier nor
to teach away from inter-enterprise data warehouses, supply chain
monitoring, or the claimed invention.
In view of the above, Patent Owner has not apprised us of an error in
the Poirier Obviousness Rejections with respect to Devlin.
Salvo
Patent Owner argues that Salvo “serves a single entity” and as such
does not teach various concepts enumerated thereafter. App. Br. PO 110.
Patent Owner merely sets out various features without reference to any
particular rejections or findings based on Salvo. See also, e.g., RAN 34-35
(“PO has not supplied any information that shows the [findings regarding the
claim limitations] to be misrepresented”). In addition, Salvo’s teachings are
in combination with Poirier, which explicitly teaches multiple entities.
Poirier 56 (fig. 3.1). Accordingly, Patent Owner does not apprise us of an
error in the Poirier Obviousness Rejections with respect to Salvo.
Appeal 2013-007281
Reexamination 95/000,557
US 6,947,903 C1
21
Kimball
Patent Owner argues that “Kimball does not discuss anything about
supply chains.” App. Br. PO 110. This argument does not apprise us of
error in the Examiner’s extensive findings with respect to Kimball, as Poirier
teaches supply chains, while Kimball is used to teach specific data
warehousing techniques. See, e.g., RAN 37 (“PO has not specifically stated
an error in the features described [in the rejection]”).
Anand
Patent Owner argues that “Anand does not disclose a system that
operates across multiple independent supply chain entities.” App. Br. PO
110. However, as we noted above, the Examiner’s rejection relies on Poirier
to teach this feature. See also RAN 36 (“PO does not give a reason why it is
not obvious to implement the data warehousing of Devlin and Anand across
independent supply chain sites as taught by Poirier”). Accordingly, this
argument does not apprise us of an error in the Poirier Obviousness
Rejections with respect to Ananad.
Brockman
Patent Owner argues that Brockman “speaks nothing of the inventive
extraction, monitoring or of the data collection site/center.” App. Br. PO
111. The Examiner relies on Brockman for teachings regarding monitoring,
detecting, and alerts, but not necessarily for the entire inventive concept (i.e.,
not for all aspects of the claim limitations). See also RAN 35 (“The
rejection relies upon Brockman for the specifics of the monitoring, detecting
and alerting functions. These specifics are combined with the teaching of
Poirier of deriving data from independent supply chain sites.”).
Appeal 2013-007281
Reexamination 95/000,557
US 6,947,903 C1
22
Accordingly, this argument is does not apprise us of an error in the Poirier
Obviousness Rejections with respect to Brockman.
Inmon and Liu
Patent Owner argues that “[n]either of these reference[s] relate to the
field of supply chain monitoring.” App. Br. PO 111. However, as the
Examiner found, Inmon and Liu are analogous art because Inmon and Liu’s
data storage techniques are useful to store supply chain information. RAN
143. Accordingly, Patent Owner’s argument does not apprise us of an error
in the Poirier Obviousness Rejections with respect to Inmon or Liu.
Rationales for Combinations Used in Rejecting Claim 1
Patent Owner challenges the rationales of all rejections of all claims
over all references together. App. Br. PO 114. However, Patent Owner
does not persuasively point to an error with respect to the specific rationales
for the combinations. Instead, Patent Owner states that “[i]t is not evident
which elements in the asserted ‘combination’ are being drawn from which
reference or how such elements are being combined.” Id. However, this
statement is only with respect to the claim charts (Exhibit CC5). See id.
Patent Owner does not consider the fact that the rejections are explained in
detail within the portions of the Request adopted by the Examiner, and the
claim charts are referenced and the proposed combinations adequately
explained therein. Accordingly, we are not apprised of error in the
Examiner’s rationales for the proposed combinations.
Conclusion for Claim 1
For the reasons above, we are not apprised of error in the Examiner’s
rejection of claim 1 in the Poirier Obviousness Rejections. Claim 37 falls
therewith.
Appeal 2013-007281
Reexamination 95/000,557
US 6,947,903 C1
23
Conclusion for the Remaining Independent Claims
Patent Owner’s arguments with respect to the remaining independent
claims are similar and, as with claim 1, directed to Poirier in isolation. As
we discussed above, arguments in isolation are not persuasive when the
rejection is based on a combination of teachings of references. Patent
Owner’s contentions are thus unpersuasive for reasons similar to those
expressed above. Accordingly, we are not apprised of error in the
Examiner’s rejections of the remaining independent claims rejected over
Poirier and one or more secondary references.
Conclusion for the Dependent Claims
Patent Owner only separately argues claim 4; the remaining
dependent claims stand or fall therewith, in their respective rejections.
Patent Owner’s argument for claim 4 is that Poirier does not disclose “the
external sites are scanned at regular intervals.” App. Br. PO 115. However,
the Examiner relied on Devlin, Kimball, Inmon, Widom, and Liu for this
feature. Req. 1041, 1108, 1158, 1202, 1240, 1276, 1313. As such, this
argument is not persuasive. Patent Owner also argues that Poirier teaches
away, but this argument is not persuasive for the reasons set forth above. Id.
We are not apprised of error in claim 4; the remaining dependents fall
therewith.
Conclusion for the Poirier Obviousness Rejections
In summary, we sustain the Examiner’s Poirier Obviousness
Rejections (JJJ-EEEE), which demonstrate the obviousness of the subject
matter of claims 1-55.

Appeal 2013-007281
Reexamination 95/000,557
US 6,947,903 C1
24
Remaining Obviousness Rejections
The Poirier Obviousness Rejections demonstrate the obviousness of
the subject matter of each claim in the ’903 Patent. Thus, we need not reach
the remaining rejections because they are cumulative.

Requester’s Cross-Appeal
Because we have affirmed multiple rejections covering each claim of
the ’903 Patent, we do not address the cross-appeal because it merely seeks
to add cumulative rejections. See Cr. App. Br. 6-9.

DECISION
For the above reasons, we AFFIRM the Examiner’s decision
regarding claims 1-55. Requests for extensions of time in this inter partes
reexamination proceeding are governed by 37 C.F.R. § 1.956.

AFFIRMED

Patent Owner:

HAMILTON, BROOK, SMITH & REYNOLDS, P.c.
530 VIRGINIA ROAD
P.O. BOX 9133
CONCORD, MA 01742-9133

Third Party Requester:

FINNEGAN, HENDERSON, FARABOW, GARRETT & DUNNER, LL
901 NEW YORK AVENUE, NW
WASHINGTON, DC 20001