10480326 (B.P.A.I. Aug. 31, 2011)

Ex Parte Cook Jr et al

Board of Patent Appeals and InterferencesAug 31, 2011

10480326 (B.P.A.I. Aug. 31, 2011)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE ____________ BEFORE THE BOARD OF PATENT APPEALS AND INTERFERENCES ____________ Ex parte HAROLD THOMAS COOK, JR., KEITH DAVID FETTERMAN, and DAVID EARL WHITE ____________ Appeal 2010-004972 Application 10/480,326 Technology Center 3600 ____________ Before MURRIEL E. CRAWFORD, HUBERT C. LORIN, and ANTON W. FETTING, Administrative Patent Judges. CRAWFORD, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL Appeal 2010-004972 Application 10/480,326 2 STATEMENT OF THE CASE Appellants seek our review under 35 U.S.C. § 134 of the Examiner’s final decision rejecting claims 1, 15, 19, 21, 25, 38 to 40, 43, 47 to 49, and 67 to 70. We have jurisdiction over the appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). We AFFIRM-IN-PART. BACKGROUND Appellants’ invention is directed to a method and system for ordering sub-components of a product, assisted by an exploded view of the product showing the sub-components (Spec. 1). Claim 1 is illustrative: 1. A method of placing an order for a sub-component of a product, comprising: displaying a list of a plurality of products on a user system; receiving a user selection of one of the plurality of products from the list to be viewed in an exploded view on the user system; displaying a diagram depicting sub-components of the selected product in an exploded view on the user system, the exploded view showing an assembly drawing of the selected product in which the sub-components are spaced apart from each other in an unassembled state, such that individual characteristics of the sub-components are visible; displaying a materials list on the user system while displaying the exploded view, the materials list listing the sub-components of the selected product in the exploded view together with information concerning the listed sub-components; receiving, while displaying the exploded view and the materials list, a user selection of a sub-component depicted in the diagram to be ordered from the user system; displaying, in the materials list, an order quantity for the selected sub- component, based on the received user selection of the sub-component; and processing the selection of the sub-component to be ordered. The Examiner relies on the following prior art reference as evidence of unpatentability: Appeal 2010-004972 Application 10/480,326 3 Uemura US 2001/0027429 A1 Oct. 4, 2001 Carbrey Palango (“Palango”) US 2002/0087423 A1 Jul. 4, 2002 Archive of www.arinet.com, http://wayback.archive.org/web/*/http://www.arinet.com (last visited Aug. 11, 2011) [hereinafter Arinet]. Appellants appeal the following rejections: Claims 1, 15, 21, 25, 38 to 40, 47 to 49, and 68 to 70 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Palango in view of Arinet. Claims 19, 43, and 67 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Palango in view of Arinet and further in view of Uemura. ISSUE Did the Examiner err in rejecting the claims because Palango does not disclose an exploded view and because Arinet does not disclose it can receive a user’s sub-component selection while displaying an exploded view? Did the Examiner err in rejecting the claims because Palango’s system has no use for exploded view diagrams? FACTUAL FINDINGS We adopt all of the Examiner’s findings as our own. Ans. 4 to 5. ANALYSIS Obviousness of claims 1, 15, 19, 21, 25, 38 to 40, 43, 47 to 49, and 68 to 70 We are not persuaded of error on the part of the Examiner by Appellants’ argument that Palango does not disclose an exploded view Appeal 2010-004972 Application 10/480,326 4 because this argument is directed to the teachings of Palango alone when the rejection is based on the combined teachings of Palango and Arinet. We note that nonobviousness cannot be established by attacking the references individually when the rejection is predicated upon a combination of prior art disclosures. See In re Merck & Co., Inc., 800 F.2d 1091, 1097 (Fed. Cir. 1986). In this regard, we note that Arinet clearly discloses an exploded view. We are likewise not persuaded of error on the part of the Examiner by Appellants’ argument that Arinet does not disclose that the Arinet system can receive a user’s sub-component selection while displaying an exploded view. We note that this argument is also directed to the teachings of one reference rather than the combined teachings of the references on which the rejection is based. In any case, we agree with the Examiner’s response to this argument found on page 10 of the answer. Specifically we find that this subject matter is disclosed in Arinet at pages 3, 6 and 10 and that Palanga also discloses receiving a user selection of a component depicted in a diagram. We are also not persuaded of error on the part of the Examiner by Appellants’ argument that it would not be obvious to modify Palango as taught by Arinet because Palango has no use for exploded view diagrams. This argument of Appellants appears to be directed to whether the Examiner has properly combined the teachings of Palango and Arinet. We find that Palango discloses a method of placing an order for a sub-component of a product from a list which is viewed in an exploded view. Arinet discloses a system in which the exploded view shows assembly drawings in which the sub-components are spaced apart from each other in an unassembled state. Appeal 2010-004972 Application 10/480,326 5 In our view, the modification of Palango so that the sub-components are spaced apart from each other in an unassembled state such that the individual characteristics of the sub-components are visible is nothing more than the combination of known elements as taught by Palango and Arinet according to known methods to yield predictable results and thus would have been obvious at the time of the invention. KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 416 (2007). In view of the foregoing, we will sustain the Examiner’s rejection of claim 1. We will also sustain the Examiner’s rejection of claims 15, 19, 21, 25, 38 to 40, 43, and 47 to 49 because Appellants have not argued the separate patentability of these claims. We will also sustain the rejection as it is directed to claim 68 because we agree with the Examiner’s response to the arguments directed to claim 68 on page 11 of the Answer. Specifically, we agree that separate windows at the bottom of pages 6 and 10 of Arinet show part numbers and price information. The price information is additional information which is displayed in response to the user’s input of selecting a particular part. We will also sustain the rejection as it directed to claims 69 and 70 because Appellants have not argued the separate patentability of these claims. Obviousness of claim 67 We will not sustain the Examiner’s rejection as it is directed to claim 67 because we agree with Appellants that Uemura, on which the Examiner relies for teaching the elements of claim 67, does not disclose determining whether a selected sub-component is available to be ordered, and if it is not available, informing the user to obtain the selected sub-component from another source. Rather, Uemura discloses at paragraph [0046] that if the Appeal 2010-004972 Application 10/480,326 6 inventory for a part falls below a predetermined level, the user is urged to order the part. DECISION We affirm the Examiner’s § 103 rejections of claims 1, 15, 19, 21, 25, 38 to 40, 43, 47 to 49, and 68 to 70. We do not affirm the Examiner’s § 103 rejection of claim 67. TIME PERIOD No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a). See 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a)(1) (2009). ORDER AFFIRMED-IN-PART babc