Ex Parte Como. et al

Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences

Jul 6, 2009

09710154 (B.P.A.I. Jul. 6, 2009)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
____________

BEFORE THE BOARD OF PATENT APPEALS
AND INTERFERENCES
____________

Ex part GARY COMO,
SHERYL L. GAST-GRAHAM, DOUG GRIMM, BARRY SMIACH,
ARNOLD Z. HUFFMAN, RICHARD R. KRAHN, JOHN MITCHELL, and
MICHAEL S. SWEENEY

____________

Appeal 2008-004558
Application 09/710,154
Technology Center 3600
____________

Decided:1 July 6, 2009
____________

Before HUBERT C. LORIN, ANTON W. FETTING, and
BIBHU R. MOHANTY, Administrative Patent Judges.

LORIN, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL

1 The two-month time period for filing an appeal or commencing a civil
action, as recited in 37 C.F.R. § 1.304, begins to run from the decided date
shown on this page of the decision. The time period does not run from the
Mail Date (paper delivery) or Notification Date (electronic delivery).

Appeal 2008-004558
Application 09/710,154

2
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Gary Como, et al. (Appellants) seek our review under 35 U.S.C. § 134
of the final rejection of claims 2-5, 7-10, 14-16, 18-22, 34-38, 40, and 42-47.
We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b) (2002).

SUMMARY OF DECISION
We AFFIRM-IN-PART. 2

THE INVENTION
The invention is a method for business planning via a communications
network, which obtains data about a material, good, product or service from a
first business entity and transmits the data to a second business entity, which
generates a business decision. Specification 3:7-21.
Claim 7, reproduced below, is illustrative of the subject matter on
appeal.
7. A method for planning a business decision, the
method comprising:
obtaining requirement-indicating data of a
first entity with respect to a transactional subject,
wherein the obtaining comprises extracting a subset
of the requirement-indicating data from a
requirement-indicating database associated with an
enterprise resource planning system, wherein the
extracting process is selected from the group
consisting of a process based on compatibility of a

2 Our decision will make reference to the Appellants’ Appeal Brief (“App.
Br.,” filed Jul. 23, 2007) and Reply Brief (“Reply Br.,” filed Feb. 7, 2008),
and the Examiner’s Answer (“Ans.,” mailed Dec. 7, 2007).

Appeal 2008-004558
Application 09/710,154
3
processing system of a second business entity to
receive the extracted subset, a process based on
previous history of usefulness of prior extracted
data, a process based on a model for managing the
transactional subject and a process based on
properties of the database;
automatically transmitting the obtained
requirement-indicating data from a first business
entity to a second business entity over a
communications network;
automatically feeding the transmitted
requirement-indicating data into an electronic
processor for monitoring the transactional subject,
the electronic processor being associated with an
electronic processing system of the second business
entity; and
generating a business decision of the first
business entity and the second business entity that is
based on the requirement-indicating data and that is
made solely by the electronic processing system
without the need for manual data entry into or
manual data extraction from the electronic
processing system.

THE REJECTION
The Examiner relies upon the following as evidence of unpatentability:
Hafner
Meltzer
US 5,893,076
US 6,125,391
Apr. 6, 1999
Sep. 26, 2000

The following rejection3 is before us for review:
1. Claims 2-5, 7-10, 34-37, and 42-444 are rejected under 35 U.S.C.
§102(e) as being anticipated by Hafner.

3 Statements of the rejections in the Examiner’s Answer incorrectly include
cancelled claims 6, 13, and 17. See Ans. 3 and 9 and App. Br. 3.
Appeal 2008-004558
Application 09/710,154
4
2. Claim 38 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. §103(a) as being
unpatentable over Hafner.
3. Claims 14-16, 18-225, 40, and 45-47 are rejected under 35 U.S.C.
§103(a) as being unpatentable over Hafner and Meltzer.

ARGUMENTS
Claims 2-5, 7, 9, 10 and 34-37
The Appellants argue that none of the passages cited by the Examiner
describes the extracting process being selected from the group consisting of 1)
a process based on compatibility of a processing system of a second business
entity to receive the extracted subset, 2) a process based on previous history of
usefulness of prior extracted data, 3) a process based on a model for managing
the transactional subject, and 4) a process based on properties of the database
as recited in claim 7. App. Br. 14-15. The Appellants also argue that the
passages cited by the Examiner are not related to an extraction process. Reply
Br. 2-4.
First, the Examiner responds that Hafner in column 3, lines 34-46
describes a process based on compatibility of a processing system of a second
business entity to receive the extracted subset. Ans. 15. The Examiner

4 The Examiner rejected claims 18-20 and 22 under both 35 U.S.C. § 102 as
anticipated by Hafner and 35 U.S.C § 103 as unpatentable over Hafner and
Meltzer. See Ans. 3 and 10. However, claims 18-22 depend from claim 14,
which was only rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103. We will consider the
rejection of claims 18-20 and 22 under § 103 and not under § 102 since it is
clear that these claims were inadvertently included in the rejection under §
102. Further, we shall consider claim 21 as rejected under § 103 since it is
reasonably clear that it was inadvertently left out of the rejection,
5 See footnote 4.
Appeal 2008-004558
Application 09/710,154
5
explains that a retailer’s software running on a network is compatible with a
client’s communication device/software since the network accepts formatted
data and makes the data available to the client. Id.
Second, the Examiner responds that Hafner’s description of an
associated menu which allows a user to extract data via evaluating demand
history in column 10, lines 50-56 reads on a process based on previous history
of usefulness of prior extracted data. Ans. 15-16.
Third, the Examiner responds that Hafner’s description of a using
replenishment modeling to manage parameters in column 10, lines 63-65
reads on this limitation. Ans. 16.
Fourth, the Examiner responds that Hafner’s description of storing
pertinent inventory information in both the stock and inventory files and using
these files for extracting data in column 5, lines 10-19 reads on this limitation.
Ans. 16.
Claim 8
The Appellants argue that Hafner does not describe transmitting a
superseding requirement-indicating data on an as-needed basis, as recited in
claim 8. App. Br. 15.
The Examiner again responds that column 4, lines 1-2 of Hafner
describes inventory adjustment data which is analogous to data that is
superseding prior inventory data. Ans. 16.
Claim 42
The Appellants argue that Hafner does not describe the extracting
process which is based on compatibility of a processing system of a second
business entity to receive the extracted subset. App. Br. 16.
Appeal 2008-004558
Application 09/710,154
6
The Examiner again responds that column 3, lines 34-46 describes this
limitation. Ans. 16. The Examiner explains that a retailer’s software running
on a network is compatible with a client communication device/software since
the network accepts formatted data and makes the data available to the client.
Id.
Claim 43
The Appellants argue that Hafner does not describe the extracting
process which is based on a previous history of usefulness of prior extracted
data. App. Br. 16-17.
The Examiner again responds that Hafner’s description of an associated
menu which allows a user to extract via evaluating demand history in column
10, lines 50-56 reads on this limitation. Ans. 17.
Claim 44
The Appellants argue that Hafner does not describe the extracting
process which is based on a model for managing the transactional subject.
App. Br. 17.
The Examiner again responds that Hafner’s description of using
replenishment modeling to manage parameters in column 10, lines 63-65
reads on this limitation. Ans. 17.
Claim 38
The Appellants argue that Hafner does not describe the extracting
process which is based on properties of the database and the Examiner
provides no reason why Hafner would be altered to use the recited extraction
process. App. Br. 18.
The Examiner responds that Hafner’s description of storing pertinent
inventory information in both the stock and inventory files, as well as, using
Appeal 2008-004558
Application 09/710,154
7
these files for extracting data in column 5, lines 10-19 reads on this limitation.
Ans. 17.
Claim 14-16, 18-20, and 22
The Appellants state that claim 14, like claim 7, recites the extracting
process being selected from the group consisting of a process based on
compatibility of a processing system of a second business entity to receive the
extracted subset, a process based on previous history of usefulness of prior
extracted data, a process based on a model for managing the transactional
subject and a process based on properties of the database. App. Br. 19. The
Appellants again argue that none of the passages of Hafner cited by the
Examiner describes this limitation and refer to their argument against the
rejection of claim 7. Id. The Appellants also argue that no reason was
provided to alter Hafner and Meltzer to meet this limitation. Id.
The Examiner contends that Hafner describes this limitation and refers
to the Examiner’s response with regards to claim 7. Ans. 18.
Claim 40
The Appellants argue that the Examiner has not provided a reason to
alter Hafner and Meltzer to perform the recited extracting process based on
properties of the database and that the passages of Hafner cited by the
Examiner do not describe this limitation. App. Br. 20.
The Examiner responds that Hafner’s description of storing pertinent
inventory information in both the stock and inventory files as well as using
these files for extracting data in column 5, lines 10-19 reads on this limitation.
Ans. 18-19.

Appeal 2008-004558
Application 09/710,154
8
Claim 45
The Appellants argue that the Examiner has not provided a reason to
alter Hafner and Meltzer to perform the recited extracting process based on
compatibility of a processing system of a second business entity to receive the
extracted subset and that the passages of Hafner cited by the Examiner do not
describe this limitation. App. Br. 20-21.
The Examiner responds that Hafner in column 3, lines 34-46 describes
this limitation. Ans. 19. The Examiner explains that a retailer’s software
running on a network is compatible with a client’s communication
device/software since the network accepts formatted data and makes the data
available to the client. Id.
Claim 46
The Appellants argue that the Examiner has not provided a reason to
alter Hafner and Meltzer to perform the recited extracting process based on
previous history of usefulness of prior extracted data and that the passages of
Hafner cited by the Examiner do not describe this limitation. App. Br. 21.
The Examiner responds that Hafner’s description of a using
replenishment modeling to manage parameters in column 10, lines 63-65
reads on this limitation. Ans. 19
Claim 47
The Appellants argue that the Examiner has not provided a reason to
alter Hafner and Meltzer to perform the recited extracting process based on a
model for managing the transactional subject and that the passages of Hafner
cited by the Examiner do not describe this limitation. App. Br. 22.
Appeal 2008-004558
Application 09/710,154
9
The Examiner responds that Hafner’s description of a using
replenishment modeling to manage parameters in column 10, lines 63-65
reads on this limitation. Ans. 19-20.

ISSUES
The issues are:
1. Does Hafner describe the extracting process being selected from the
group consisting of a process based on compatibility of a processing
system of a second business entity to receive the extracted subset, a
process based on previous history of usefulness of prior extracted
data, a process based on a model for managing the transactional
subject and a process based on properties of the database as recited
in claim 7?
2. Does Hafner describe transmitting superseding requirement-
indicating data on an as-needed basis as recited in claim 8?
3. Does Hafner describe an extracting process based on compatibility
of a processing system of a second business entity to receive the
extracted subset as recited in claim 42?
4. Does Hafner describe an extracting process based on a process based
on previous history of usefulness of prior extracted data as recited in
claim 43?
5. Does Hafner describe an extracting process based on a process based
on a model for managing the transactional subject as recited in claim
44?
Appeal 2008-004558
Application 09/710,154
10
6. Would one of ordinary skill in the art have been led by Hafner to an
extracting process based on properties of the database as recited in
claim 38?
7. Would one of ordinary skill in the art have been led by Hafner and
Meltzer to an extracting process being selected from the group
consisting of a process based on compatibility of a processing
system of a second business entity to receive the extracted subset, a
process based on previous history of usefulness of prior extracted
data, a process based on a model for managing the transactional
subject and a process based on properties of the database as recited
in claim 14?
8. Would one of ordinary skill in the art have been led by Hafner and
Meltzer to the step of obtaining one of demand data or forecast data
for the transactional subject?
9. Would one of ordinary skill in the art have been led by Hafner and
Meltzer to an extracting process being based on properties of the
database as recited in claim 40?
10. Would one of ordinary skill in the art have been led by Hafner and
Meltzer to an extracting process being based on compatibility of a
processing system of a second business entity to receive the
extracted subset as recited in claim 45?
11. Would one of ordinary skill in the art be led by Hafner and Meltzer
to an extracting process based on previous history of usefulness of
prior extracted data as recited in claim 46?
Appeal 2008-004558
Application 09/710,154
11
12. Would one of ordinary skill in the art be led by Hafner and Meltzer
to an extracting process based on a model for managing the
transactional subject as recited in claim 47?

FINDINGS OF FACT
We find that the following enumerated findings of fact (FF) are
supported by at least a preponderance of the evidence. Ethicon, Inc. v. Quigg,
849 F.2d 1422, 1427 (Fed. Cir. 1988) (explaining the general evidentiary
standard for proceedings before the Office).
Claim construction
1. Claim 7 recites a method including the step of:
obtaining requirement-indicating data of a first
entity with respect to a transactional subject,
wherein the obtaining comprises

extracting a subset of the requirement-indicating
data from a requirement-indicating database
associated with an enterprise resource planning
system, wherein the extracting process is selected
from the group consisting of a process based on
compatibility of a processing system of a second
business entity to receive the extracted subset, a
process based on previous history of usefulness of
prior extracted data, a process based on a model for
managing the transactional subject and a process
based on properties of the database

automatically transmitting the obtained requirement-
indicating data from a first business entity to a
second business entity over a communications
network.

Appeal 2008-004558
Application 09/710,154
12
2. Claim 8 recites “wherein the transmitting comprises transmitting
superseding requirement-indicating data on an as-needed basis to
replace prior requirement-indicating data at the second business
entity.”
3. Claim 14 recites a method including the step of:
obtaining demand-indicating data with respect to a
transactional subject, wherein the obtaining
comprises:

extracting a relevant portion of the demand-
indicating data from a database, wherein the
extracting process is selected from the group
consisting of a process based on compatibility of a
processing system of a second business entity to
receive the extracted subset, a process based on
previous history of usefulness of prior extracted
data, a process based on a model for managing the
transactional subject and a process based on
properties of the database.

4. Claim 21 depends from claim 14 and recites “obtaining one of
demand data and forecast data for the transactional subject.”
5. Claim 38 depends from claim 7 and recites “wherein the extracting
process is based on properties of the database.”
6. Claim 40 depends from claim 14 and recites “wherein the extracting
process is based on properties of the database.”
7. Claim 42 depends from claim 7 and recites “wherein the extracting
process is based on compatibility of a processing system of a second
business entity to receive the extracted subset.”
Appeal 2008-004558
Application 09/710,154
13
8. Claim 43 depends from claim 7 and recites “wherein the extracting
process is based on a process based on previous history of usefulness
of prior extracted data.
9. Claim 44 depends from claim 7 and recites “wherein the extracting
process is based on a process based on a model for managing the
transactional subject.
10. Claim 45 depends from claim 14 and recites “wherein the extracting
process is based on compatibility of a processing system of a second
business entity to receive the extracted subset.”
11. Claim 46 depends from claim 14 and recites “wherein the extracting
process is based on a process based on previous history of usefulness
of prior extracted data.
12. Claim 47 depends from claim 14 and recites “wherein the extracting
process is based on a process based on a model for managing the
transactional subject.

The scope and content of the prior art
Hafner
13. Hafner describes a computer system for online processing of
business transactions between a supplier and a retailer. Col. 2, ll. 42-
45.
14. The computer system includes a retailer processor which transmits
business data, a replenishment processor with receives the business
data and generates suggested business transactions, and a supplier
processor which receives the suggested business transactions. Col. 2,
ll. 45-52.
Appeal 2008-004558
Application 09/710,154
14
15. The retailer processor transmits point of sale data and inventory
adjustment data when the retailer either sells or loses goods to the
replenishment processor via value added network 30. Col. 3, l. 64 –
col. 4, l. 10 and Col. 6, ll. 12-15.
16. The value added network 30 formats the transmitted data. Col. 3, ll.
67.
17. The formatted transmitted data is then stored in a stock data file 240
or an inventory activity data 245 file by the populate inventory
function 215 and the database manager 235. Col. 6, ll. 17-22.
18. The replenishment processor includes a forecast engine 230 which
creates predictions of future needs based on parameters and the
stock and inventory activity data. Col. 6, ll. 22-25.
19. Based on the prediction, the SOQ function 270 creates an SOQ (i.e.
order). Col. 6, ll. 25-27.
20. Hafner describes the replenishment processor including a transaction
processing system 5, which allows the retailer and supplier access to
different functions. Col. 6, l. 65 – col. 7, l. 1.
21. Hafner describes one of the functions as a forecast processing sub-
system which includes a parameter file menu which allows for
management of parameters that control forecasting and
replenishment modeling. Col. 10, ll. 63-65.
22. Hafner describes other functions as a “demand file maintenance”
function, which allows a user to create and maintain a demand
history file record (Col. 11, ll. 18-29) and a “update weekly
demand” function (Col. 12, ll. 5-12).

Appeal 2008-004558
Application 09/710,154
15
Meltzer
23. The Examiner cited Meltzer to describe a system for parsing
structured information and formatting the information into an
extensible XML document. Ans. 13.

PRINCIPLES OF LAW
Claim Construction
During examination of a patent application, a pending claim is given
the broadest reasonable construction consistent with the specification and
should be read in light of the specification as it would be interpreted by one of
ordinary skill in the art. In re Am. Acad. of Sci. Tech Ctr., 367 F.3d 1359,
1364 (Fed. Cir. 2004).
[W]e look to the specification to see if it provides a
definition for claim terms, but otherwise apply a
broad interpretation. As this court has discussed,
this methodology produces claims with only
justifiable breadth. In re Yamamoto, 740 F.2d 1569,
1571 (Fed. Cir. 1984). Further, as applicants may
amend claims to narrow their scope, a broad
construction during prosecution creates no
unfairness to the applicant or patentee. Am. Acad.,
367 F.3d at 1364.
In re ICON Health and Fitness, Inc., 496 F.3d 1374, 1379 (Fed. Cir. 2007).
Limitations appearing in the specification but not recited in the claim are not
read into the claim. E-Pass Techs., Inc. v. 3Com Corp., 343 F.3d 1364, 1369
(Fed. Cir. 2003).
Anticipation
“A claim is anticipated only if each and every element as set forth in the
claim is found, either expressly or inherently described, in a single prior art
Appeal 2008-004558
Application 09/710,154
16
reference.” Verdegaal Bros., Inc. v. Union Oil Co. of Cal., 814 F.2d 628, 631
(Fed. Cir. 1987).
Obviousness
“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, and (3) the
level of skill in the art. 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.”) The Court in Graham further noted that evidence
of secondary considerations “might be utilized to give light to the
circumstances surrounding the origin of the subject matter sought to be
patented.” 383 U.S. at 17-18.

ANALYSIS
The rejection of claims 2-5, 7-10, 34-37, and 42-44 under 35 U.S.C. §102(e)
over Hafner.
Claims 2-5, 7, 9, 10, and 34-37
The Appellants argued claims 2-5, 7, 9, 10, and 34-37 as a group (App.
Br. 15). We select claim 7 as representative claim of this group, and the
remaining claims, 2-5, 9, 10, and 34-37, stand or fall with claim 7. 37 C.F.R.
§ 41.37(c)(1)(vii) (2007).
Appeal 2008-004558
Application 09/710,154
17
A determination that a claim is anticipated under 35 U.S.C.
§ 102(b) involves two analytical steps. First, the Board must
interpret the claim language, where necessary. Because the PTO
is entitled to give claims their broadest reasonable interpretation,
our review of the Board's claim construction is limited to
determining whether it was reasonable. In re Morris, 127 F.3d
1048, 1055 (Fed. Cir. 1997). Secondly, the Board must compare
the construed claim to a prior art reference and make factual
findings that “each and every limitation is found either expressly
or inherently in [that] single prior art reference.” Celeritas Techs.
Ltd. v. Rockwell Int'l Corp., 150 F.3d 1354, 1360 (Fed. Cir.
1998).

In re Crish, 393 F.3d 1253, 1256 (Fed. Cir. 2004).
Claim 7 recites a method including the step of obtaining requirement-
indicating data, wherein the obtaining comprises extracting a subset of the
requirement-indicating data, wherein the extracting process is selected from a
group-consisting of 1) a process based on compatibility of a processing
system of a second business entity to receive the extracted subset, 2) a process
based on previous history of usefulness of prior extracted data, 3) a process
based on a model for managing the transactional subject and 4) a process
based on properties of the database. FF 1. We note that claim 7 recites that the
step of obtaining requirement-indicating data comprises an extraction process
but does not restrict the step from comprising other processes. The transitional
term "comprising" as recited (FF 1) opens the claim to additional elements.
See Genentech Inc. v. Chiron Corp., 112 F.3d 495, 501, 42 USPQ2d 1608,
1613 (Fed. Cir. 1997). See also Moleculon Research Corp. v. CBS, Inc., 793
F.2d 1261, 1271 (Fed. Cir. 1986). Also, claim 7 does not recite who or what
performs the obtaining step or where the obtaining step is performed.
However, we note that claim 7 also recites a step of transmitting the obtained
requirement-indicating data from a first business entity to a second business
Appeal 2008-004558
Application 09/710,154
18
entity over a communications line. Id. Further, for claim 7 to be anticipated
only one of the four recited extracting processes must found in the prior art.
However, since the Appellants provide arguments against each of the four
recited processes, we will address each.
First, we agree with the Examiner that Hafner describes a step of
obtaining requirement-indicating data comprising an extraction process based
on compatibility of a processing system of a second business entity to receive
an extracted subset of the requirement-indicating data from a database as
recited by claim 7. Hafner describes a replenishment system that receives
inventory information from a retailer system. FF 15. The information is
formatted by a value added network into any format supported by the network
before arriving at the replenishment system. FF 16. As explained by the
Examiner, the formatting makes the data compatible to the replenishment
system. Ans. 15. We find that this reads on the claimed step of obtaining
requirement-indicating data including an extraction process (i.e. the process of
formatting the transmitted inventory information) based on compatibility of a
processing system of a second business entity (i.e. the replenishment system)
to receive the extracted subset (i.e. the transmitted formatted inventory
information).
Second, we agree with the Appellants that Hafner does not describe a
step of obtaining requirement-indicating data comprising an extraction process
based on previous history of usefulness of prior extracted data. Hafner’s
description of creation of demand history files (FF 22) cited by the Examiner
(Ans. 15-16) does not read on an extraction process based on previous history
of usefulness of prior extracted data.
Appeal 2008-004558
Application 09/710,154
19
Third, we agree with the Appellants that Hafner does not describe a step
of obtaining requirement-indicating data comprising an extraction process
based on a model for managing the transactional subject. Hafner describe that
the inventory activity data file and the stock file receive the formatted data
from the retailer (FF 15-17) and are inputted in to the forecast engine (FF 18).
Hafner also describes a forecast processing subsystem includes a parameter
file menu which allows for management of the replenishment model (FF 21)
as cited by the Examiner (Ans. 16). However, Hafner does not describe that
the parameters, parameter file menu or replenishment model is used as a basis
for an extraction process of a subset of information. Hafner is silent as to how
forecast processing subsystem process the inventory activity data file and the
stock file with the parameters to obtain the prediction and the Examiner has
not asserted that the forecast engine would inherently extract a subset of data
based on the replenishment model. When relying upon the theory of
inherency, the examiner must provide a basis in fact and/or technical
reasoning to reasonably support the determination that the allegedly inherent
characteristic necessarily flows from the teachings of the applied prior art. See
Ex parte Levy, 17 USPQ2d 1461, 1464 (BPAI 1990).
Fourth, we agree with the Examiner (Ans. 16.) that Hafner describes a
step of obtaining requirement-indicating data comprising an extraction process
based on properties of the database. As discussed above in regards to the first
recited process, Hafner describes formatting the data transmitted from the
retailer in a value added network. FF 15-17. The formatting of the data
transmitted from the retailer reads on a property of the database.
Appeal 2008-004558
Application 09/710,154
20
Accordingly, since Hafner does describe two of the recited extraction
processes, we find that the Appellants have not shown that the Examiner erred
in rejecting claim 7, and claims 2-5, 9, 10, and 34-37 dependent thereon.
Claim 8
We agree with the Examiner that Hafner describes the transmitting
superseding requirement-indicating data on an as-needed basis as a recited in
claim 8. FF 2. Hafner describes the retailer transmitting inventory adjustment
information when the retailer either sells or loses which reads on the claimed
step of transmitting superseding requirement-indicating data. FF 13.
Accordingly, we find that the Appellants have not shown that the
Examiner erred in rejecting claim 8.
Claim 42
The Appellants argue against the rejection of claim 42 for one of the
same reasons used to argue against the rejection of claim 7. (App. Br. 16).
Claim 42 restricts the extraction process to be the process based on
compatibility of a processing system of a second business entity to receive the
extracted subset (FF 7), which the Appellants assert is not described by
Hafner. Accordingly, because we found this argument unpersuasive as to the
rejection of claim 7, we find the argument equally unpersuasive as to error in
the rejection of claim 42.
Claim 43
The Appellants argue against the rejection of claim 43 for one of the
same reasons used to argue against the rejection of claim 7. App. Br. 16-17.
Claim 43 restricts the extraction process to be a process based on previous
history of usefulness of prior extracted data (FF 8), which the Appellants
assert is not described by Hafner. Accordingly, since we found this argument
Appeal 2008-004558
Application 09/710,154
21
persuasive as discussed above, we find the argument equally persuasive as to
error in the rejection of claim 43.
Claim 44
The Appellants argue against the rejection of claim 44 for one of the
same reasons used to argue against the rejection of claim 7. App. Br. 17.
Claim 44 restricts the extraction process to be a process based on a model for
managing the transactional subject (FF 9), which the Appellants assert is not
described by Hafner. Accordingly, since we found this argument persuasive
as discussed above, we find the argument equally persuasive as to error in the
rejection of claim 44.

The rejection of claim 38 under 35 U.S.C. §103(a) over Hafner.
The Appellants argue against the rejection of claim 38 for one of the
same reasons used to argue against the rejection of claim 7. (App. Br. 18).
Claim 38 requires the extraction process to be the process based on properties
of the database (FF 5), which the Appellants argue Hafner does not teach as
asserted by the Examiner. Accordingly, because we found this argument
unpersuasive as to the rejection of claim 7, we find the argument equally
unpersuasive as to error in the rejection of claim 38.
The rejection of claims 14-16, 18-20, 22, 40, and 45-47 under 35 U.S.C.
§103(a) over Hafner and Meltzer.
Claims 14-16, 18-20, and 22
The Appellants argued claims 14-16, 18-20 and 22 as a group (App. Br.
19). We select claim 14 as the representative claim for this group, and the
remaining claims 15-16, 18-20 and 22 stand or fall with claim 14. 37 C.F.R. §
41.37(c)(1)(vii) (2007).
Appeal 2008-004558
Application 09/710,154
22
Like claim 7, claim 14 also recites the step of obtaining data, wherein
the obtaining comprises extracting a subset of data, wherein the extracting
process is selected from a group-consisting of 1) a process based on
compatibility of a processing system of a second business entity to receive the
extracted subset, 2) a process based on previous history of usefulness of prior
extracted data, 3) a process based on a model for managing the transactional
subject and 4) a process based on properties of the database. FF 3. We note
that claim 14 also recites the step of automatically transmitting the extracted
relevant portion of the demand-indicating data from a first business entity to a
second business. Id.
The Appellants argue against the rejection of claim 14 for the same
reasons used to argue against the rejection of claim 7 and further the
Appellants argue the Examiner has provided no reason to alter Hafner and
Meltzer to perform the recited extracting process. App. Br. 19. However, we
found these arguments unpersuasive as to the rejection of claim 7 since we
found that Hafner described two of the four recited processes, and we find the
arguments equally unpersuasive as to error in the rejection of claim 14 and
claims 15-16, 18-20 and 22, dependent thereon.
Claim 216
Claim 21 recites that the obtaining step includes obtaining one of
demand data or forecast data for the transactional subject. FF 4. The
Examiner found that Hafner’s inventory information is demand data. Ans. 3.
We agree with the Examiner that Hafner’s inventory adjustment data that
received at the replenishment processor (FF 15) teaches the step of obtaining

6 See footnote 4.
Appeal 2008-004558
Application 09/710,154
23
one of demand data or forecast data for the transactional subject. Therefore,
we find that claim 21 is unpatentable over Hafner and Meltzer.
Claim 40
The Appellants argue against the rejection of claim 40 for one of the
same reasons used to argue against the rejection of claim 7. App. Br. 20.
Claim 40 requires the extraction process to be the process based on properties
of the database (FF 6), which the Appellants argue Hafner does not teach as
asserted by the Examiner. Accordingly, because we found this argument
unpersuasive as to the rejection of claim 7, we find the argument equally
unpersuasive as to error in the rejection of claim 40.
Claim 45
The Appellants argue against the rejection of claim 45 for one of the
same reasons used to argue against the rejection of claim 7. App. Br. 20-21.
Claim 45 requires the extraction process to be the process based on
compatibility of a processing system of a second business entity to receive the
extracted subset (FF 10), which the Appellants argue Hafner does not teach as
asserted by the Examiner. Accordingly, because we found this argument
unpersuasive as to the rejection of claim 7, we find the argument equally
unpersuasive as to error in the rejection of claim 45.
Claim 46
The Appellants argue against the rejection of claim 46 for one of the
same reasons used to argue against the rejection of claim 7. App. Br. 21.
Claim 46 restricts the extraction process to be the process based on previous
history of usefulness of prior extracted data (FF 11), which the Appellants
argue Hafner does not teach as asserted by the Examiner. Accordingly, since
Appeal 2008-004558
Application 09/710,154
24
we found this argument persuasive as discussed above, we find the argument
equally persuasive as to error in the rejection of claim 46.
Claim 47
The Appellants argue against the rejection of claim 47 for one of the
same reasons used to argue against the rejection of claim 7. App. Br. 22.
Claim 47 requires the extraction process to be the process based on a model
for managing the transactional subject (FF 12), which the Appellants argue
Hafner does not teach as asserted by the Examiner. Accordingly, since we
found this argument persuasive as discussed above, we find the argument
equally persuasive as to error in the rejection of claim 47.

CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
We conclude that the Appellants have not shown that the Examiner
erred in rejecting claims 2-5, 7-10, 34-37, and 42 under 35 U.S.C. § 102(e) as
anticipated by Hafner, claim 38 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as unpatentable over
Hafner, and claims 14-16, 18-22, 40, and 45 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as
unpatentable over Hafner and Meltzer.
We conclude that the Appellants have shown that the Examiner erred in
rejecting claims 43-44 under 35 U.S.C. § 102(e) as anticipated by Hafner, and
claims 46-47 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as unpatentable over Hafner and Meltzer.

DECISION
The decision of the Examiner to reject claims 2-5, 7-10, 14-16, 18-22,
34-38, 40, 42, and 45 is affirmed and the decision to reject claims 43, 44, 46,
and 47 is reversed.
No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with this
appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a)(1)(iv) (2007).
Appeal 2008-004558
Application 09/710,154
25

AFFIRMED-IN-PART

mev

ACCENTURE CHICAGO 28164
BRINKS HOFER GILSON & LIONE
P O BOX 10395
CHICAGO IL 60610