Ex Parte Au et al

Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences

Jan 12, 2009

09859705 (B.P.A.I. Jan. 12, 2009)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
__________

BEFORE THE BOARD OF PATENT APPEALS
AND INTERFERENCES
__________

Ex parte MICHAEL KAI-YIN AU, DONALD ALEXANDER BOURNE,
QI CHENG, ASIT DAN, DANIEL MANUEL DIAS, DAVID FLETCHER
EVANS, RICHARD P. KING, IVAN LEW, JOHN F. SCHUMACHER,
HIDAYATULLAH H. SHAIKH, JOHNNY WAI-NANG WONG, and
YANCHUN ZHAO
__________

Appeal 2008-5033
Application 09/859,705
Technology Center 3700
__________

Decided: January 12, 2009
__________

Before ERIC GRIMES, RICHARD M. LEBOVITZ, and STEPHEN
WALSH, Administrative Patent Judges.

WALSH, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL
This is an appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134 involving claims to a method
and data processing system for managing a catalog. The Examiner rejected
the claims as obvious. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). We
affirm.
Appeal 2008-5033
Application 09/859,705

STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Claims 1-15 and 32-46, which are all the pending claims, are on
appeal. Claims 1-15 define a method that involves performing steps on a
primary data processing system and on a plurality of secondary data
processing systems. The steps include sending catalog and user information,
allocating inventory, and receiving and processing orders. Claims 32-46
define a data processing system that comprises means for carrying out the
method steps.
The claims were rejected as follows:
• Claims 1-8, 11-15, 32-39 and 42-46 were rejected under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a) over the combined teachings of Westrope1 and Kennedy2
• Claims 9, 10, 40 and 41 were rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a)
over the combined teachings of Westrope, Kennedy and Yamazoe.3
Appellants argue the claims in five groups, naming the first claim in
each group as representative:
Claims 1-3, 8, 11-15, 32-44, 39 and 42-46 (App. Br. 9-19);
Claims 4, 5, 35 and 36 (App. Br. 19-20);
Claims 6, 7, 37 and 38 (App. Br. 21);
Claims 9 and 40 (App. Br. 21-23); and
Claims 10 and 41 (App. Br. 24.). The representative claims read as
follows:
1. A method in a primary data processing system for managing a
catalog, the method comprising:

1 U.S. Patent No. 5,968,110, issued to Westrope et al., Oct. 19, 1999.
2 U.S. Patent No. 6,167,380, issued to Kennedy et al., Dec. 26, 2000.
3 U.S. Patent Application No. 2001/0032148, by Yamazoe et al., published
Oct. 18, 2001.
2
Appeal 2008-5033
Application 09/859,705

sending a catalog and user information to a plurality of secondary data
processing systems located in a network data processing system;
allocating inventory associated with the catalog to the plurality of
secondary data processing systems;
receiving an order from one of the plurality of secondary data
processing systems; and
processing the order, in response to receiving the order.

4. The method of claim 3, wherein the request to allocate the
inventory is received from the particular secondary data processing system
upon a detection of a condition by the secondary data processing system.

6. The method of claim 1 further comprising:
periodically obtaining necessary shopping cart data from at least one
secondary data processing system within the plurality of secondary data
processing systems; and
forwarding the necessary shopping cart data to other secondary data
processing systems within the plurality of secondary data processing
systems.

9. The method of claim 8, wherein the markup language is
extensible markup language.

10. The method of claim 1 further comprising:
detecting a presence of another secondary data processing system; and
sending the catalog to the another secondary data processing system in
response to detecting the presence.

OBVIOUSNESS
Claims 1-8, 11-15, 32-39 and 42-46
The Examiner rejected claims 1-8, 11-15, 32-39 and 42-46 for
obviousness over the Westrope and Kennedy patents. The Examiner found
that Westrope disclosed the features of the claims except for the “allocating
inventory” step. (Ans. 3.) The Examiner concluded it would have been
obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art to have added Kennedy’s
3
Appeal 2008-5033
Application 09/859,705

allocation method to Westrope’s method because it would have allowed the
organization to designate a forecast entry such that available-to-promise
product is always zero. (Ans. 3-4).
Appellants contend there are errors in the rejection associated with
each group of claims. For the claims grouped with claim 1, the alleged
errors are that (1) Westrope did “not teach sending a catalog and user
information to a plurality of secondary data processing systems” (App. Br.
12-14); and (2) Kennedy did not teach allocating inventory (App. Br. 14-15).
Appellants also contend the Examiner failed to give a proper reason for
combining Westrope and Kennedy. (App. Br. 16-19).
For the claims grouped with claim 4, an alleged additional error is the
Examiner’s reliance on Official Notice for the notion that it was well known
to set and detect a threshold condition in the inventory field. (App. Br. 20).
For the claims grouped with claim 6, an alleged additional error is that
neither Westrope nor Kennedy teach or suggest “necessary shopping cart
data.”
The issues with respect to this rejection are:
• whether Westrope taught sending a catalog and user information to a
plurality of secondary data processing systems;
• whether Kennedy taught allocating inventory;
• whether the Examiner properly combined the Westrope and Kennedy
teachings;
• whether the Examiner properly invoked Official Notice that it was
well known to set and detect a threshold inventory condition; and
• whether Westrope and Kennedy taught or suggested “necessary
shopping cart data.”
4
Appeal 2008-5033
Application 09/859,705

Claims 9, 10, 40 and 41
The Examiner rejected claims 9, 10, 40 and 41 for obviousness over
Westrope, Kennedy and Yamazoe. 4 The Examiner’s position is that the
only claimed feature not found or suggested in the combined system of
Westrope and Kennedy is extensible markup language. (Ans. 4). In the
Examiner’s view, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the
art to have used extensible markup language mentioned by Yamazoe
because it would have ensured a safe transmission of information or a
document through a network. (Ans. 5).
Appellants contend that one of skill in the art would not have
combined the references and arrived at the inventions of claim 9 and claim
10 because the references are directed toward solving different problems.
(App. Br. 21-26). Appellants further argue that the combination does not
teach or suggest claim 10’s “detecting a presence of another secondary data
processing system,” or “sending the catalog to another secondary data
processing system in response to detecting the presence.”
The issues with respect to this rejection are:
• whether the references are directed toward solving different problems
such that those of skill in the art would not have combined their
teachings; and

4 The Examiner’s statement of rejection omits the Kennedy reference.
(Ans. 4.). The omission is a typo because the Examiner’s explanation cites
Kennedy and explains the reasons for relying on Kennedy. The typo is
harmless because Appellants recognize that Kennedy is relied on, and
Appellants address Kennedy in their arguments concerning this rejection.
(App. Br. 22-25).
5
Appeal 2008-5033
Application 09/859,705

• whether the combination of references suggests “detecting a presence
of another secondary data processing system,” and “sending the
catalog to another secondary data processing system in response to
detecting the presence.”
FINDINGS OF FACT
1. Westrope discloses a method and apparatus for selectively
transmitting and displaying interactive catalog data selected by a user
at a customer’s terminal. (Col. 2, ll. 49-52.)
2. Westrope’s interactive system comprises:
- a central data processor system for storing an indexing electronic
catalog data, including graphic and audio message data,
- memory means for storing and selectively retrieving specific
portions of a retailer catalog data specified by a user request,
- a communication link to selectively establish a communication path
between a user’s terminal and the central data processing system in
response to a user inquiry,
- an online interactive service control processor responsive to user
commands to control retrieval of specified catalog data identified in a
user request,
- a user profile data processor for selectively generating customer
profile data if authorized by the user/customer, and
- order processing means responsive to a user order command for
completing the accounting and order delivery tasks involved in
fulfilling a user order. (Col. 2, ll. 52-67.).
6
Appeal 2008-5033
Application 09/859,705

3. Westrope’s customer terminals may be personal computers coupled to
the controller via any communication path, for example a telephone
line or modem. (Col. 3, ll. 21-27.).
4. Westrope’s system signals the central data processor when a user
requests service and the central processor retrieves the digital catalog
data for transmission to the user’s terminal. (Col. 3, ll. 28-34.).
5. In Westrope’s system, a user may select a variety of catalogs from a
menu transmitted from the central data processor for display at the
user’s terminal. (Col. 3, ll. 34-39.).
6. In Westrope’s system, a user may specify a specific catalog by name
and the central data processor would then transmit only the selected
catalog for display at the user’s terminal. (Col. 3, ll. 43-47.).
7. Westrope’s system activates an order processing system, a
merchandizing data and accounting processor in conjunction with a
customer request. (Col. 3, ll. 47-52.)
8. When a customer inquiry generates an order, Westrope’s system
accounting and order processor handles the order. (Col. 3, ll. 52-69.).
9. Westrope uses known mail order processing for packaging and
delivery to the address the customer specifies. (Col. 3, l. 63 – col. 4, l.
2.).
10. Westrope’s order fulfillment procedures may include having the
ordered products assembled and mailed to the address directed by the
customer. (Col. 7, ll. 37-45.).
11. Westrope’s order process may follow the steps of order entry,
processing, updating the order data base, updating the customer data
7
Appeal 2008-5033
Application 09/859,705

base and updating the data bank and inventory memories. (Col. 9, l.
66 – col. 10, l. 3.).
12. Westrope’s Figure 5 illustrates an embodiment of Westrope’s
invention showing a plurality of customer terminals 63, a catalog
services data processor 67, an accounting order processing system 73
and a marketing data processor 75. (Col. 6, l. 65 – col. 8, l. 7.).
13. Kennedy’s patent is entitled “System and Method for Allocating
Manufactured Products to Sellers.” (Page 1).
14. Kennedy’s field of invention relates to “the fields of demand
management, supply chain management, capacity management, and
configure-to-order processes.” (Col. 1, ll. 24-26).
15. Kennedy provides a software system “for managing available to
promise (ATP) and making promises to fulfill customer requests.”
(Col. 2, ll. 38-41).
16. Kennedy’s automatic allocation system “allows the organization to
designate a forecast entry as a zero-ATP entry such that the available-
to-promise product at the entry is always zero.” (Col. 3, ll. 16-21).
17. Yamazoe’s patent application is entitled “SYSTEM OF AND
METHOD FOR EXCHANGING INFORMATION ON
COMMERCIAL TRANSACTION EXPLOITING ELECTRONIC
CATALOG AND SYSTEM OF AND METHOD FOR
COLLECTING AND STORING MARKETING INFORMATION.”
(Page 1).
8
Appeal 2008-5033
Application 09/859,705

18. Yamazoe states that in E-commerce, a selling company using an
electronic catalog may use XML “(extensible markup language).”
(Page 2, Para. 0045).

PRINCIPLES OF LAW
Section 103 of Title 35 prohibits 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.”
Obviousness is a question of law based on fact findings: the scope
and content of the prior art are determined; differences between the prior art
and the claims at issue are ascertained; and the level of skill in the art is
resolved. Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 17-18 (1966). Against
that background, the obviousness or nonobviousness of the subject matter is
determined. Id.; In re Kahn, 441 F.3d 977, 985 (Fed. Cir. 2006). The
determination of obviousness is made with respect to the subject matter as a
whole, not separate pieces of the claim. See KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex Inc.,
127 S. Ct. 1727, 1734 (2007). What the prior art teaches, whether it teaches
away from the invention, and whether it motivates a combination of
teachings from different references are questions of fact. In re Fulton,
391 F.3d 1195, 1200 (Fed. Cir. 2004). When references are combined, the
question is whether there is something in the prior art as a whole to suggest
the desirability, and thus the obviousness of making the combination. Id.
Two criteria for determining whether the teachings of prior art
references should be combined are:
9
Appeal 2008-5033
Application 09/859,705

(1) whether the art is from the same field of endeavor, regardless of
the problem addressed, and
(2) if the reference is not within the field of the inventor’s endeavor,
whether the reference still is reasonably pertinent to the particular
problem with which the inventor is involved.

Kahn, 441 F.3d at 987 (citing In re Oetiker, 977 F.2d 1443, 1447 (Fed. Cir.
1992)). The law does not require that the references be combined for the
reasons contemplated by an inventor. Id. at 988 (citation omitted). “The
mere age of the references is not persuasive of the unobviousness of the
combination of their teachings, absent evidence that, notwithstanding
knowledge of the references, the art tried and failed to solve the problem.”
In re Wright, 569 F.2d 1124, 1127 (CCPA 1977).
“During patent examination the pending claims must be interpreted as
broadly as their terms reasonably allow.” In re Zletz, 893 F.2d 319, 322
(Fed. Cir. 1989). The ordinary meaning of “plurality” includes “more than
one.” E.g., Bilstad v. Wakalopulos, 386 F.3d 1116, 1123 (Fed. Cir. 2004).
In patent parlance, the word “a” means “one or more,” absent evidence
necessitating a departure from the rule. Baldwin Graphic Sys., Inc. v.
Siebert, Inc., 512 F.3d 1338, 1342-43 (Fed. Cir. 2008). “The subsequent use
of definite articles ‘the’ or ‘said’ in a claim to refer back to the same claim
term does not change the general plural rule, but simply reinvokes that non-
singular meaning.” Id.
ANALYSIS
Claim 1
Appellants argue under headings A.1.i. and ii. of their Appeal Brief
that the combined prior art does not teach sending “a catalog and user
information” to a plurality of secondary data processing systems. (App. Br.
10
Appeal 2008-5033
Application 09/859,705

10-14). Referring to the Examiner’s reliance on Westrope Figure 5,
Appellants argue that Westrope does not send a catalog to accounting order
processing system 73 or marketing data processor 75; and that catalog
services data processor 67 sends only a “signal,” not user information, to
accounting order processing system 73 or marketing data processor 75.
(App. Br. 12).
We do not agree with Appellants’ reading that claim 1 requires
sending “a catalog and user information” as a combined package that must
include both a catalog and user information simultaneously sent to the same
processor. The broadest reasonable interpretation of “sending a catalog and
user information” does not require simultaneous transmission of a catalog
and of user information, nor does it require that both be sent to one and the
same destination. The broadest reasonable interpretation includes sending a
catalog to a first processor and sending user information to another
processor. Appellants have not shown how the language of the claim would
lead to their narrower, more restrictive interpretation.
Westrope sends one or more catalogs to a plurality of secondary data
processing systems, shown in Figure 5 as multiple “TV/display – telephone
terminal 63.” (FF3). We agree with the Examiner’s finding that Westrope
sends user information, not merely a signal, to both the accounting order
processing system 73 and marketing data processor 75. (FF12). We do not
read the claim as requiring the identical user information be sent to both
processors. To be sure, the passage of Westrope that Appellants quote (App.
Br. 11-12) says “the catalog data processing [sic] signals the accounting and
order processor 73” . . . “to exercise the appropriate order processing
requests to clear the customer/user’s financial payment authorization and
11
Appeal 2008-5033
Application 09/859,705

initiate the order fulfillment procedure to have-the [sic] ordered products
assembled and mailed to the address directed by the user/customer for that
particular transaction.” (Col. 7, ll. 37-45) (emphasis added). The catalog
data processor similarly signals the marketing data processor 75 to “generate
. . . customer profile marketing data.” (Id. at ll. 45-53). We find that neither
of the processors 73 or 75 could carry out its function without user
information. We do not agree with Appellants’ argument that processors 73
and 75 only receive a signal, but instead find that they carry out their
functions with user information they have been sent. (FF7-10).
Claim 1 uses the open transitional term “comprising.” Claim 1 is
therefore open to multiple unrecited communication steps, such as
information exchange between processors and memory files. In Westrope’s
Figure 5, communication between marketing data processor 75 and customer
file memory 77 is denoted with a two-way arrow, indicating that the user
information stored in customer file memory 77 can be sent to marketing data
processor 75. Similarly, communication between accounting order
processing system 73 and the fulfillment procedure is denoted with a two-
way arrow. We find that Westrope’s method also includes sending user
/customer information to secondary data processors 75 and 77.
The ordinary meaning of “plurality” is more than one. We find that
Westrope sends a catalog to more than one secondary data processing
system, multiple terminals 63. The two-way arrows between terminals 63
and the system indicate that user information is also sent back to the
terminals, e.g., if there are problems in the credit authorization. (Col. 8, ll.
65-68). Westrope also sends user information to more than one secondary
data processing system when it sends to system 73 and processor 75.
12
Appeal 2008-5033
Application 09/859,705

Appellants argue that neither 73 nor 75 is a secondary data processing
system. (App. Br. 13). We do not find a specialized definition for
“secondary data processing system” in the Specification, nor do Appellants
provide evidence of special usage in the art. According to Westrope,
“accounting and order processor 73” is signaled by the catalog services data
processor 67 to “exercise the appropriate order processing.” (Col. 6, ll. 37-
41). The Examiner reasonably assigned the label “secondary” to processor
73, which processes data after being signaled by processor 67. Similarly,
processor 75 processes a subset of data after being signaled by processor 67.
We note that Westrope’s Figure 5 labels element 73 an “accounting order
processing system,” but that the text at Col. 6, ll. 38-39 calls it “accounting
and order processor 73.” Whether labeled as a system or processor, element
73 is described by Westrope as processing data, and we find the Examiner
properly identified it as a secondary data processing system. In sum, we do
not agree with Appellants’ narrow reading of the claim terms to exclude the
prior art. We find that Westrope teaches the step of “sending a catalog and
user information to a plurality of secondary data processing systems.”
Under heading A.1.iii. of their Brief, Appellants argue that the
combined prior art does not teach “allocating inventory.” (App. Br. 14-15).
The Specification does not provide a specialized definition for this term.
Instead the Specification discloses that “[t]he actual process used to allocate
inventory may be implemented in many ways.” (Spec. 17).
Appellants argue that “Kennedy teaches allocating units of
manufacturing capability that Kennedy refers to as ‘available to promise’
units,” but “‘[a]vailable to promise’ units are units of manufacturing
capability, not inventory.” (App. Br. 15). Because the units are not the
13
Appeal 2008-5033
Application 09/859,705

same, and because Appellants cannot find the word “inventory” in Kennedy,
Appellants argue that Kennedy does not suggest “allocating inventory.” We
disagree. Kennedy is teaching a product distribution method. The sentences
preceding the Examiner’s citation show the context: “According to an
additional aspect of the present invention, a software system wherein the
organization promises product to the members based on an automatic
allocation policy. The automatic allocation policy can be first-come-first-
served, per allocated, per committed, member rank, or fixed split.” (Col. 3,
ll. 13-18). In keeping with Appellants’ Specification, any of these allocating
methods are covered in the claims.
Appellants quote from Kennedy at Col. 2, ll. 18-31, for the
explanation that manufacturers must build intermediate items before
receiving customer orders. (App. Br. 15). Pre-production is based on
projections called “forecast orders,” and a product produced based on
forecast orders is referred to as “available to promise” or “ATP.” In the
passages quoted from Kennedy, Appellants emphasize that “ATP consists of
quantities of products with associated dates that the products are scheduled
to be available for delivery to the customer.” (Id.)
We are not persuaded that this is a distinction from Claim 1. In the
passage Appellants first directed us to from Westrope (App. Br. 11),
Westrope explains that after a user orders a product, the catalog data
processor signals the accounting and order processor to initiate the order
fulfillment procedure to have the products assembled. (FF10). That is, one
of skill in the art following the teachings of Westrope would have to fulfill
orders that might require product assembly. Kennedy’s software for
allocating such products addresses that problem.
14
Appeal 2008-5033
Application 09/859,705

Under Appeal Brief headings A.1.iv.-v., Appellants argue that the
Examiner failed to state a proper teaching, suggestion, or motivation to
combine the references. According to Appellants, because Westrope and
Kennedy “address different problems,” there is no such motivation, and the
Examiner does not relate how Kennedy’s advantages relate to Westrope.
(App. Br. 16-18). According to Appellants, Westrope does not involve
products that must be manufactured, but Kennedy does. Appellants are
overlooking the fact that Westrope’s catalog can include items that must be
assembled and therefore are manufactured. (FF10). Kennedy teaches a way
to allocate such products for order fulfillment. We find that Westrope and
Kennedy both address that problem, and are therefore in the same field of
endeavor. We also find that Kennedy’s teachings are reasonably pertinent to
Westrope’s method. The combination of references is proper under either
prong of the Oetiker test Appellants reference. (Br. 17.)
Under heading A.1.vi., Appellants argue that because claim 1 has not
been disclosed in the six years since Kennedy issued, “the natural conclusion
to draw is that claim 1 is non-obvious.” (App. Br. 19.). Accepting the
passage-of-time-based conclusion of nonobviousness as their premise,
Appellants then reason that “[b]ecause claim 1 is non-obvious, no teaching,
suggestion, or motivation exists to combine the references to achieve the
invention of claim 1.” Id. First, we reject Appellants’ passage-of-time-
based conclusion because Appellants provide no evidence that the “art tried
and failed to solve the problem.” Wright, 569 F.2d at 1127 (affirming
obviousness from the teachings of three references that were 43, 66 and 97
years old, respectively, at the time of Wright’s invention). Accord, Kahn,
441 F.3d at 990-91 (citing Wright).
15
Appeal 2008-5033
Application 09/859,705

Second, we reject Appellants’ cart-before-the-horse reasoning.
Appellants propose to conclude nonobviousness based on one selected fact
(six year passage of time), and then use that conclusion to suppress the
existence of prior art facts relating to motivation. This is opposite the
Graham analysis we are instructed to use. The legal conclusion of
obviousness or nonobviousness is to be made after finding facts including
the scope and content of the prior art, not the other way around. E.g., Kahn,
441 F.3d at 985.
Claim 4
Claim 4 adds the limitation that the request to allocate inventory is
received “upon detection of a condition.” The Examiner took Official notice
that it was “well known” to set a condition because it would help in
determining the location of missing products. (Ans. 4). Appellants object
on the grounds that the Examiner is not entitled to take Official notice in this
manner, and that the Examiner must withdraw the rejection or provide an
affidavit. (App. Br. 20).
To traverse the Examiner’s finding under 37 C.F.R. § 1.111(b),
Appellants must state “why the noticed fact is not considered to be common
knowledge or well-known in the art.” Manual of Patent Examining
Procedure § 2144.03. Appellants have not denied the truth of the
Examiner’s finding, nor have they pointed to any flaw in the Examiner’s
reasoning.
In context of the Westrope system that updates the inventory after
processing an order, and Kennedy’s automatic allocation software that
allows a forecast entry, it is logical that Westrope would have used updated
inventory information in an automatic way. (FF11). For example, if
16
Appeal 2008-5033
Application 09/859,705

inventory was depleted, the system would detect an empty condition and
request an inventory allocation. Appellants’ Specification does not define
setting a condition with any particularity, and relies on pre-existing
knowledge in the art to choose set points and implement detection. Under
these circumstances, we do not find reversible error in the Examiner’s use of
Official notice.
Claim 6
The Examiner found that “Westrope discloses a system that is capable
of providing a shopping card [sic, cart] data (items ordered by the user are
stored in a safe place) from the secondary data processing system.” (Ans.
4). Appellants argue that the Examiner “does not show how Westrope or
Kennedy teach that the shopping cart data is necessary, as recited in claim
6.” (App. Br. 21, Appellants’ emphasis).
The Westrope and Kennedy inventions are directed to systems for
fulfilling customer orders. Preserving at least the identity of the ordered
items through the data processing steps is essential to both prior art systems
so that the customer gets what the customer ordered, a “necessary” feature
for the operation of a sales catalog. The Specification provides no special
definition of necessary. We agree with the Examiner’s finding that storing
an ordered item is an example of obtaining “necessary” shopping cart data,
and that step is found in the prior art disclosure.
Claim 9
According to Appellants, Yamazoe is directed to the problem of low
efficiency when conducting online negotiations, which Appellants
distinguish from online catalog sales. (App. Br. 22). Appellants’ argument
fails to account for the fact that Yamazoe’s title references electronic
17
Appeal 2008-5033
Application 09/859,705

catalogs (FF17), and Yamazoe expressly teaches that a selling company
using an electronic catalog may use XML. (FF18).
Appellants argue that because “the references address completely
distinct problems that are unrelated to each other,” there would have been no
reason to combine them, citing Oetiker and Wood. (App. Br. 22-23).
However, all three references relate to sales and meeting customer demand.
The combination meets the first test for whether references are from the
same field of endeavor, regardless of the problem addressed, as explained in
Oetiker and Wood. Kahn, 441 F.3d at 987 (citing Oetiker). Moreover,
Westrope and Yamazoe expressly address selling merchandise with
electronic catalogs, and Kennedy addresses software for scheduling to meet
customer demands. All three are reasonably pertinent to the particular
problem with which the Appellants are involved. These conditions meet the
tests for same field of endeavor and for analogous art. Id.
Claim 10
Claim 10 adds two steps to the method of claim 1: (1) detecting the
presence of another secondary data processing system, and (2) sending the
catalog to the newly detected system. Appellants repeat their objections to
the combination of references, but do not point to any specific error by the
Examiner. Westrope’s Figure 5 shows plural TV/Display-Telephone
Terminals 63, which may be IBM PC XT computers. (FF3). The system
sends a catalog to the terminal at the user’s request. (FF6). In other words,
Westrope’s system detects the presence of a new user at a secondary data
processing system and sends a catalog. We affirm the Examiner’s findings.

18
Appeal 2008-5033
Application 09/859,705

CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
• Westrope taught sending “a catalog and user information;”
• Westrope taught sending to a “plurality” of secondary data processing
systems;
• Kennedy taught allocating inventory;
• the Examiner properly combined the Westrope and Kennedy
teachings;
• the Examiner properly invoked Official Notice that it was well known
to set and detect a threshold inventory condition;
• Westrope and Kennedy taught or suggested “necessary shopping cart
data;”
• the references are not directed toward solving different problems such
that those of skill in the art would not have combined their teachings;
and
• the combination of references suggests “detecting a presence of
another secondary data processing system,” and “sending the catalog
to another secondary data processing system in response to detecting
the presence.”

SUMMARY
We affirm the rejection of claims 1-8, 11-15, 32-39 and 42-46 under
35 U.S.C. § 103(a) over the combined teachings of Westrope and Kennedy;
and
we affirm the rejection of claims 9, 10, 40 and 41 under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a) over the combined teachings of Westrope, Kennedy and Yamazoe.
19
Appeal 2008-5033
Application 09/859,705

No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with
this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a).
AFFIRMED
LP

DUKE W. YEE
YEE & ASSOCIATES, P.C.
P.O. BOX 802333
DALLAS TX 75380

20