Ex Parte Breaux et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Oct 18, 2012

10286291 (P.T.A.B. Oct. 18, 2012)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
____________________

BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
____________________

Ex parte DOUGLAS N. BREAUX, MICHAEL F. CIPRIANI,
RICHARD C. JAWORSKI, STEVEN L. MARTIN, and
MICHAEL L. WILLIAMS
____________________

Appeal 2011-000636
Application 10/286,291
Technology Center 3600
____________________

Before: ANTON W. FETTING, MEREDITH C. PETRAVICK, and
MICHAEL W. KIM, Administrative Patent Judges.

KIM, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL

Appeal 2011-000636
Application 10/286,291

2
STATEMENT OF CASE
Appellants appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134 from a rejection of claims 1-
9 and 28-33. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We REVERSE.
The claims are directed to an order processing system, method and
program product. Claim 1, reproduced below, is illustrative of the claimed
subject matter:
1. An order processing system including at least one
computing device, the at least one computing device
comprising:
an integrated input system for receiving and transforming
an order request into order data, wherein the input system
includes a plurality of input handlers, including a first input
handler that receives order requests in a first format specific to
the first input handler and a second input handler that receives
order requests in a second format specific to the second input
handler and that is different from the first format wherein the
first and second input handlers transform the received order
requests from their respective first and second formats into
order data having a common output format;
a request system for processing the order data, the
request system including a plurality of request handlers,
wherein each request handler processes a unique type of order
request; and
a receipt system for generating an order receipt based on
the processed order data, the receipt system including a
plurality of output handlers, wherein each output handler is
adapted to generate an order receipt having a format that is
unique from each of the other output handlers.

Appeal 2011-000636
Application 10/286,291

3
REJECTIONS
Claims 1-9 and 28-33 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 112, second
paragraph, as indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly
claim the subject matter which applicant regards as the invention.
Claims 1-9 and 28-33 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
unpatentable over Weber (US 6,178,409 B1, iss. Jan. 23, 2001), Lidow (US
2005/0177435 A1, pub. Aug. 11, 2005), Rosenquist (US 2004/0030618 A1,
pub. Feb. 12, 2004), and Nakatsuyama (US 6,574,598 B1, iss. Jun. 3, 2003).

OPINION
Rejection under 35 U.S.C. § 112, Second Paragraph
We are persuaded of error by Appellants’ argument that claim 1 does
not include optional language, as asserted by the Examiner. App. Br. 5. The
claim recites a system comprising three required components: an input
system, a request system, and a receipt system. There are no optional
components. Furthermore, we note that the Examiner references italicized
clauses (Ans. 4), however, no italicized clauses are present. With regard to
the intended use/functional aspects of the aforementioned systems, while we
agree that the cases cited by the Examiner stand for the proposition that
intended use/functional language is usually subject to very broad
constructions, such breadth is not indefiniteness. Therefore, we reverse the
rejection of the claim as vague and indefinite.

Rejection under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a)
We are persuaded of error by Appellants’ argument that although each
of the Weber, Lidow, and Rosenquist references disclose a receipt, each is
Appeal 2011-000636
Application 10/286,291

4
silent with regard to a plurality of output handlers, where “each output
handler is adapted to generate an order receipt having a format that is unique
from each of the other output handlers.” App. Br. 7.
For the “receipt system,” the Examiner directs us to three separate
references. First, the Examiner relies on the source code listing in “the POS
Merchant Pay Customization section of Weber.” Ans. 7. We interpret this
to be the “vPOS Merchant Pay Customization” section of Weber that
extends from column 69 to column 89, and which includes a source code
listing extending over nine pages. In column 79 of that source code is a
comment that the vPOSReceipt section “[g]enerates a receipt from the return
block and profile info.” Second, the Examiner relies on paragraph [0188] of
Lidow to disclose “a Supply chain server 74 that creates 350 a receipt ....”
Ans. 7. Finally, the Examiner relies on paragraph [0109] of Rosenquist to
disclose a “POU process to generate a purchase order receipt.” Ans. 7.
Although each of these three references discloses a single type of
receipt, we do not find a “plurality of output handlers, wherein each output
handler is adapted to generate an order receipt having a format that is unique
from each of the other output handlers” as claimed, because each reference
only discloses a single handler with a single format. The Examiner does not
combine these separate receipt generators to meet the claim requirement,
because the combination only modifies the Lidow/Weber combination to
“include Rosenquist receipt system for generating an order receipt ....” Ans.
7. For this reason, we reverse the rejection of claim 1 under 35 U.S.C. §
103(a), as well as dependent claims 2-9 and 28-33.

Appeal 2011-000636
Application 10/286,291

5
DECISION
The Examiner’s rejection of claims 1-9 and 28-33 is REVERSED.

REVERSED

hh