Ex Parte Aschick et al

Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences

Dec 30, 2009

10163038 (B.P.A.I. Dec. 30, 2009)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
____________

BEFORE THE BOARD OF PATENT APPEALS
AND INTERFERENCES
____________

Ex parte PETER ASHICK, THOMAS FLECK,
MICHAEL KALTENBACH, UDO KLEEMANN
and NORBERT LIEBISCH
____________

Appeal 2009-002684
Application 10/163,038
Technology Center 3600
____________

Decided: December 30, 2009
____________

Before, MURRIEL E. CRAWFORD, JOSEPH A. FISCHETTI, and
BIBHU R. MOHANTY, Administrative Patent Judges.

FISCHETTI, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL

Appeal 2009-002684
Application 10/163,038

2
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Appellants’ seek our review under 35 U.S.C. § 134 of the Examiner’s
final rejection of claims 1-20. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b)
(2002).

SUMMARY OF DECISION
We AFFIRM.

THE INVENTION
Appellants claim a system and method for supply chain process
management, and more specifically for managing logistics of a supply chain
of digitally networked supply chain participants. (Specification 1:18-22)
Claim 1, reproduced below, is representative of the subject matter on
appeal.

1. A processor-implemented decentralized
method of managing a supply chain of digitally
networked supply chain participants, comprising:

identifying at least two supply chain suppliers
in the supply chain being linked directly within the
supply chain;

grouping the at least two supply chain
suppliers; determining, on the side of each of the at
least two grouped supply chain suppliers, logistic
fulfillment requirements for providing local supply
activities to the at least other supply chain
participant of the grouped supply chain suppliers;

exchanging logistic fulfillment information
between the at least two supply chain suppliers for
controlling the local supply activities;
Appeal 2009-002684
Application 10/163,038

3
controlling the supply chain, on the side of
each of the at least two supply chain suppliers,
dependent on the content of the exchanged logistic
fulfillment information.

THE REJECTIONS
The Examiner relies upon the following as evidence of
unpatentability:

Adler US 2002/0169658 A1 Nov. 14, 2002
Crabtree US 2002/0128944 A1 Sep. 12, 2002
Cline US 6,944,598 B1 Sep. 13, 2005

The following rejections are before us for review.
The Examiner rejected claim Claims 1-12 and 15-17 under 35 U.S.C.
103(a) as being unpatentable over Crabtree in view of Adler.
The Examiner rejected claims 3, 14, and 19 under 35 U.S.C. 35
U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Crabtree in view of Adler and
Cline.
The Examiner rejected claims 1-20 under 35 U.S.C. § 112, second
paragraph as being indefinite.
ISSUES
Have Appellants shown that the Examiner erred in rejecting Claims 1-
12 and 15-17 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Crabtree
in view of Adler on the grounds that a person with ordinary skill in the art
would understand that although Crabtree discloses a trusted agent in the
system customer/supplier systems, suppliers are still able to communicate at
the server to server level?
Appeal 2009-002684
Application 10/163,038

4
Have Appellants shown that the Examiner erred in rejecting Claims 1-
20 under 35 U.S.C. § 112, Second Paragraph as being indefinite because the
claims recite each side of the supply chain?

PRINCIPLES OF LAW
The test for definiteness under 35 U.S.C. § 112, second paragraph, is
whether “those skilled in the art would understand what is claimed when the
claim is read in light of the specification.” Orthokinetics, Inc. v. Safety
Travel Chairs, Inc., 806 F.2d 1565, 1576 (Fed. Cir. 1986) (citations
omitted).
“Section 103 forbids issuance of a patent when ‘the differences
between the subject matter sought to be patented and the prior art are such
that the subject matter as a whole would have been obvious at the time the
invention was made to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which said
subject matter pertains.’” KSR Int'l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 406
(2007). The question of obviousness is resolved on the basis of underlying
factual determinations including (1) the scope and content of the prior art,
(2) any differences between the claimed subject matter and the prior art, (3)
the level of skill in the art, and (4) where in evidence, so-called secondary
considerations. Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 17-18 (1966). See
also KSR, 550 U.S. at 407 (“While the sequence of these questions might be
reordered in any particular case, the [Graham] factors continue to define the
inquiry that controls.”)

Appeal 2009-002684
Application 10/163,038

5
FINDINGS OF FACT
We find the following facts by a preponderance of the evidence:
1. The Examiner found that Crabtree discloses all the elements of
independent claims 1, 12 and 17 except “…logistic fulfillment to the other
supply chain but Adler discloses determining, on the side of each of the at
least two grouped supply chain suppliers, logistic fulfillment requirements
for providing local supply activities to the at least other supply chain
participant of the grouped supply chain participants (page 3, [0022]).”
(Answer 4)
2. The Examiner thus found that:
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary
skill in the art to utilize the logistic fulfillment
information as taught by Alder into the system
of Crabtree because it would allow more suppliers
to join and participation a supply chain, which
may help to increase the efficiency of the
fulfillment process.
(Answer 4)

3. The Specification Summary states:
The idea underlying the invention is to provide a
certain level of supplier collaboration and
replenishment, i.e. control of goods movement, by
way of logistic information exchange between
suppliers directly interlinked within the entire
supply chain network and thus to defer
responsibility for fulfillment of local logistic
supply chain requirements from the supplied
company to the supply chain participants, thus to
decentralize those local management efforts but to
keep control of the entire supply chain process at
the supplied company.
(Specification 5:17-27)
Appeal 2009-002684
Application 10/163,038

6
4. Crabtree discloses that while the trusted agent 300 is associated
with a public hub 302, both of which cooperate to facilitate the exchange of
commodities over, for instance, a network, such as an Internet, Intranet,
Extranet or other type of network, the trusted agent functions nevertheless
can be provided by an independent entity from that of the public hub.
(¶ [0026])
5. Crabtree discloses, “[a]lternatively, the customer/supplier computer
system can perform server-to-server level communication to interchange
data. Information 450 can be passed between customer/supplier systems
408, 410 and systems 402, 404, 406 via public hub 412.” (¶ [0040])
6. Alder discloses a highly adaptive, modular framework allowing
attributes and decision rules to be modified quickly and selectively. (¶
[0052])

ANALYSIS
We affirm the rejections of claims 1-20 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a); and
reverse the rejection of claims 1-20 under 35 U.S.C. § 112, second
paragraph as being indefinite.
The 35 U.S.C. § 112, Second Paragraph Rejection.
Appellants traverse the rejection of 35 U.S.C. § 112, second paragraph
rejection. Appellants “submit that the statement ‘on the side’ is descriptive
of a location, as clearly described throughout the patent application, for
example, at page 5, first paragraph; page 7, first paragraph; page 10, line 12:
page 12, first and second paragraphs, etc. As a result, the statement "on the
side" is clearly defined in the instant application.” (Appeal Br. 22) We agree
with Appellants.
Appeal 2009-002684
Application 10/163,038

7
Claim 1 recites “on the side” in the context of “on the side of each of
the at least two grouped supply chain suppliers….” Page 10, line 12 of the
Specification describes “side” in terms of the supplied company. We thus
interpret “side” to mean the side being supplied or supplying which is
consistent with how the term is used in the claims.
We therefore will not sustain the rejection of claims 1-20 under 35
U.S.C. § 112, second paragraph.

Claims 1-12 and 15-17 rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Crabtree in view of Adler.
The Examiner found that Crabtree discloses all the elements of
independent claims 1, 12 and 17 except logistic fulfillment to the other
supply chain. (FF1) This fact has not been contested by Appellants. (Appeal
Br. 16)
What Appellants do contest is that Crabtree “teaches away from the
present invention, which aims at decentralizing the local management
efforts. Contrary to the present invention, Crabtree aims at centralizing the
management efforts by introducing the trusted agent.” (Appeal Br. 17)
We disagree with Appellants because Crabtree does not actually teach
away from every aspect of all local management efforts. See In re Gurley,
27 F.3d at 553. The Examiner maintains that: “Crabtree does not disclose
centralizing the management efforts as Appellant argues (sic), but the trusted
agent is used to making (sic make) sure that the exchange of commodities
are (sic is) done smoothly. It is not used for management to get control of
other local management by centralizing the commodities in one location.”
(Answer 7) The Examiner’s position here is supported by Appellants’
Appeal 2009-002684
Application 10/163,038

8
Specification in that it limits the decentralization issue to “supplier
collaboration and replenishment, i.e. control of goods movement, by way of
logistic information exchange between suppliers directly interlinked within
the entire supply chain network….” (FF 3). Moreover, Crabtree discloses
that while the trusted agent is associated with a public hub, the functions of
the trusted agent nevertheless can be provided by an entity independent of
the public hub. (FF 4) Still further, Crabtree discloses, “[a]lternatively, the
customer/supplier computer system can perform server-to-server level
communication to interchange data. Information 450 can be passed between
customer/supplier systems 408, 410 and systems 402, 404, 406 via public
hub 412.” (FF 5) According to Crabtree, even with a trusted agent in the
system, customer/supplier systems are able to communicate at the server to
server level. Thus, as long as the combination is not directed to the
discouraged aspects of the particular customer supplier system, there is no
teaching away.
Appellants next argue that “…the present invention … allows supply
chain suppliers to be and linked ‘directly’, which understandably means:
without passing through a trusted agent.” (Appeal Br. 19) We disagree with
Appellants for two reasons. First, the claims only require two supply chain
suppliers in the supply chain being linked directly within the supply chain.
This language leaves open the possibility of the two supply chain suppliers
being linked directly through the intermediary of a connecting application,
e.g., a trusted agent. Second, as found supra (FF 5), Crabtree discloses
server-to-server level communication to interchange data which we interpret
as causing the users of the supply chain to be linked directly within the
supply chain.
Appeal 2009-002684
Application 10/163,038

9
Appellants also argue “Adler does not provide any teaching or
suggestion to support modifying the Crabtree design to manage a supply
chain of digitally networked supply chain participants….” (Appeal Br. 20)
To the extent Appellants’ seek an explicit suggestion or motivation in the
reference itself, this is no longer the law in view of the Supreme Court’s
recent holding in KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 406 (2007).
Since the Examiner has provided some articulated reasoning with some
rational underpinning for why a person with ordinary skill in the art would
modify Crabtree to use the logistic fulfillment information as taught by
Alder in the system of Crabtree (FF 2), Appellants’ argument is not
persuasive as to error in the rejection. We find it reasonable to understand
that logistic fulfillment information would “allow more suppliers to join and
participation a supply chain, which may help to increase the efficiency of the
fulfillment process.” (FF 2) This is because Alder discloses a highly
adaptive modular framework allowing attributes and decision rules to be
modified quickly and selectively. (FF 6) Thus, for the above reasons we
sustain the rejection of claims.

Claims 3, 14, and 19 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Crabtree in view of Adler and Cline.

With regard to remaining rejected claims 3, 14, and 19, because
Appellants’ argument to the rejection made against these claims relies upon
the underlying argument to the independent claims, we also affirm the
examiner’s rejection of these claims.
Appeal 2009-002684
Application 10/163,038

10
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
We conclude the Appellants have not shown that the Examiner erred
in rejecting claim Claims 1-12 and 15-17 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Crabtree in view of Adler.
We conclude the Appellants have not shown that the Examiner erred
in rejecting claim claims 3, 14, and 19 under 35 U.S.C. 35 U.S.C. § 103(a)
as being unpatentable over Crabtree in view of Adler and Cline.
We conclude the Appellants have shown that the Examiner erred in
rejecting claims 1-20 under 35 U.S.C. § 112, second paragraph as being
indefinite.
DECISION
The decision of the Examiner to reject claims 1-20 is AFFRIMED.

MP

SAMUEL A. KASSATLY LAW OFFICE
20690 VIEW OAKS WAY
SAN JOSE, CA 95120