Ex Parte Guerrero et al

Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences

Aug 25, 2009

10218720 (B.P.A.I. Aug. 25, 2009)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
____________

BEFORE THE BOARD OF PATENT APPEALS
AND INTERFERENCES
____________

Ex parte MICHAEL LOUIS GUERRERO and ANTONIO AUGUSTO
SOARES
____________

Appeal 2009-005552
Application 10/218,720
Technology Center 3600
____________

Decided: August 25, 2009
____________

Before MURRIEL E. CRAWFORD, HUBERT C. LORIN, and
ANTON W. FETTING, Administrative Patent Judges.

LORIN, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL
Appeal 2009-005552
Application 10/218,720

2
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Michael Louis Guerrero et al. (Appellants) seek our review under 35
U.S.C. § 134 of the final rejection of claims 1-50. We have jurisdiction
under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b) (2002).

SUMMARY OF DECISION
We AFFIRM. 1

THE INVENTION
The invention tracks a defective component by designating the
component as scrap and using a bumpy barcode associated with a serial
number to track the component until the scrap designation is removed from
the component. Specification 3:2-11.
Claim 1, reproduced below, is illustrative of the subject matter on
appeal.
1. A method for identifying a component in a
network environment, the method comprising:
receiving a communication indicating that a
component includes a defect in a component
tracking module; associating the component with a
bumpy barcode corresponding to a serial number
stored in the component tracking module, the
component being designated as scrap in response
to receiving the communication; and tracking
progress of the component for the lifetime of the

1 Our decision will make reference to the Appellants’ Appeal Brief (“App.
Br.,” filed Apr. 4, 2008) and Reply Brief (“Reply Br.,” filed Aug. 18, 2008),
and the Examiner’s Answer (“Ans.,” mailed Jun. 20, 2008).

Appeal 2009-005552
Application 10/218,720

3
component or until the tracking of the component
is no longer desired.

THE REJECTIONS
The Examiner relies upon the following as evidence of
unpatentability:
Cantwell
Hassel
US 6,220,333 B1
US 6,246,919 B1
Apr. 24, 2001
Jun. 12, 2001
John Deere Application Profile,
http://web.archive.org/web/20010303103532/www.meccomark.com/j
deer.html, (last visited Jun. 19, 2007). (Herein after, John Deere).

The following rejections are before us for review:
1. Claims 1, 4-7, 14, 17-19, 25, 28-31, 38, and 41-44 are rejected
under 35 U.S.C. §103(a) as being unpatentable over Cantwell
and Hassel.
2. Claims 2-3, 8-9, 10-13, 15-16, 20-24, 26-27, 32-37, 39-40, and
45-50 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. §103(a) as being
unpatentable over Cantwell, John Deere and Hassel.

ARGUMENTS
The rejection of claims 1, 4-7, 14, 17-19, 25, 28-31, 38, and 41-44
under 35 U.S.C. §103(a) as being unpatentable over Cantwell and Hassel.
Claims 1 and 4-7
The Appellants argue that the Examiner has failed to establish a prima
facie case of obviousness since the combination of Cantwell and Hassel fails
to teach the steps of 1) receiving a communication indicating that a
component includes a defect in a component tracking module and 2)
Appeal 2009-005552
Application 10/218,720

4
associating the component with a bumpy bar code corresponding to a serial
number stored in the component tracking module, 3) the component being
designated as scrap in response to receiving the communications recited in
claim 1. App. Br. 7-8. The Appellants assert that Cantwell’s statement that
“[t]he use of bar codes during manufactur[ing] for work-in-progress
tracking, inventory control, work piece routing, etc. has become a valuable
tool” (Cantwell col. 3, ll. 60-62) does not teach the claimed steps of
“receiving a communication… that a component includes a defect” or
“associating the component with a bumpy bar code corresponding to a serial
number”. App. Br. 7-8. Further, the Appellants assert that Hassel does not
disclose these steps. App. Br. 8.
In response, the Examiner provides a table which describes where all
of the limitations of claim 1 are found in Cantwell and Hassel. See Ans. 9-
11. In the table, the Examiner asserts that the chip card-like electronic data
medium of Hassel reads on the claimed computer tracking module, that the
step of associating a bumpy barcode with a serial number in a component
tracking database is taught in Cantwell, and that Hassel’s teaching of
documenting test results, rework and maintenance reads on the claimed
limitation that the component be designated as scrap. Ans. 9-10. The
Examiner responds that “Hassel by collecting QA data and Test Results in
the chip card-like electronic data medium is indirectly suggesting that a form
of communication is being used to write the data into the chip card-like
electronic data medium.” Ans. 12.
Further, the Appellants argue that the Examiner improperly took
Official Notice that “it is old and well known in the Inventory Control Arts
at the time of the invention on how to implement ‘work in progress tracking’
Appeal 2009-005552
Application 10/218,720

5
to accomplish a manufacturing organization’s goals” without providing
evidentiary support. App. Br. 8-9 and Reply Br. 2-4. In response, the
Examiner asserts that Official Notice was not taken nor traversed. Ans. 11.
Claims 14 and 17-19
The Appellants argue that claim 14 includes limitations similar to the
limitations of claim 1, except that claim 14 is directed to an apparatus. App.
Br. 9. The Appellants rely upon their arguments with regards to claim 1, to
traverse the rejection of claim 14. Id.
In response the Examiner again provides a table, similar to the table
provided for claim 1, which describes where all of the limitations of claim
14 are found in Cantwell and Hassel. See Ans. 12-13.
Claims 25 and 28-31
The Appellants argue that claim 25 includes limitations similar to the
limitations of claim 1 except that claim 25 is directed to a system. App. Br.
10. The Appellants rely upon their arguments with regards to claim 1 to
traverse the rejection of claim 25. Id.
In response, the Examiner again provides a table, similar to the table
provided for claim 1, which describes where all of the limitations of claim
25 are found in Cantwell and Hassel. See Ans. 14-15.
Claims 38 and 41-44
The Appellants argue that claim 38 includes limitations similar to the
limitations of claim 1 except that claim 38 is directed to software. App. Br.
10. The Appellants rely upon their arguments with regards to claim 1 to
traverse the rejection of claim 38. App. Br. 11.
Appeal 2009-005552
Application 10/218,720

6
In response the Examiner again provides a table, similar to the table
provided for claim 1, which describes where all of the limitations of claim
38 are found in Cantwell and Hassel. See Ans. 16-17.

The rejection of claims 2-3, 8-9, 10-13, 15-16, 20-24, 26-27, 32-37, 39-40,
and 45-50 under 35 U.S.C. §103(a) as being unpatentable over Cantwell,
John Deere and Hassel.
Claims 10, 22, 34, and 47
The Appellants assert that claims 10, 22, 34, and 47 all recite
limitations, which require providing access to the component tracking
module via a website that is operable to provide an interface between the
component tracking module and a plurality of manufacturing entities and
that none of Cantwell, John Deere and Hassel teach such a website. App.
Br. 11-13.
In response, the Examiner asserts that, given Cantwell’s bumpy bar
code techniques, John Deere’s description of a traceability database that
provides a manufacturer with component traceability information and
Hassel’s chip card electronic tracking module, that it would be obvious “to a
person of ordinary skill in the art that being able to instantly identify and
track a component requires a network computer based factory inventory
control system with a database for storing component profiles, and
associated manufacturing process data.” Ans. 20.
Claims 12, 23, 36, and 49
The Appellants assert that claims 12, 23, 36, and 49 all recite
limitations, which require storing a profile associated with a component in a
component tracking module and identifying an additional component for
Appeal 2009-005552
Application 10/218,720

7
investigation of the defect based on a selected one of manufacturing
characteristics and historical data included in the profile and that none of
Cantwell, John Deere and Hassel teach these limitations. App. Br. 13-14.
The Examiner repeats their response to arguments for claims 10, 22,
34, and 47. Ans. 22-23.
Claims 2-3, 8-9, 11, 13, 15-16, 20, 21, 24, 26-27, 32, 33, 35, 37, 39,
40, 45, 46, 48, and 50
The Appellants have not separately argued dependent claims 2-3, 8-9,
11, 13, 15-16, 20, 21, 24, 26-27, 32, 33, 37, 39, 40, 45, 46, 48, and 50.
Therefore, these dependent claims will stand or fall with the claims from
which they depend.

ISSUES
The issues are:
1. Would one of ordinary skill in the art have been led by
Cantwell and Hassel, to the method recited in claim 1 that
includes the steps of receiving a communication indicating that
a component includes a defect in a component tracking module
and associating the component with a bumpy bar code
corresponding to a serial number stored in the component
tracking module, the component being designated as scrap in
response to receiving the communications?
2. Would one of ordinary skill in the art have been led by
Cantwell and Hassel, to the apparatus recited in claim 14 that
includes a component tracking module operable to receive a
communication indicating that a component includes a defect,
Appeal 2009-005552
Application 10/218,720

8
wherein the component which includes a bump bar code and
operable to identify the component by a serial number stored in
the component tracking module, and operable to designated the
component as scrap in the component tracking module in
response to receiving the communication?
3. Would one of ordinary skill in the art have been led by
Cantwell and Hassel, to the system recited in claim 25 that
includes means for receiving a communication indicating that a
component includes a defect in a component tracking module
and means for associating the component with a bumpy bar
code corresponding to a serial number stored in the component
tracking module, the component being designated as scrap in
response to receiving the communications?
4. Would one of ordinary skill in the art have been led by
Cantwell and Hassel, to the software embodied in a computer
readable medium recited in claim 38 that is operable to
receiving a communication indicating that a component
includes a defect in a component tracking module and
associating the component with a bumpy bar code
corresponding to a serial number stored in the component
tracking module, the component being designated as scrap in
response to receiving the communications?
5. Would one of ordinary skill in the art have been led by
Cantwell, John Deere, and Hassel, to provide access to the
component tracking module via a website as required by claims
10, 22, 34 and 47?
Appeal 2009-005552
Application 10/218,720

9
6. Would one of ordinary skill in the art have been led by
Cantwell, John Deere, and Hassel, to the step of identifying an
additional component for investigation of the defect based on
the profile stored in the component tracking module as recited
in claim 12, an apparatus operable to perform this step as
recited in claims 23 and 36, or an article including software
operable to perform this step as recited in claim 49?

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 1 recites a method including the steps of “receiving a
communication indicating that a component includes a defect in a
component tracking module; associating the component with a
bumpy bar code corresponding to a serial number stored in the
component tracking module, the component being designated as
scrap in response to receiving the communication.”
2. Claim 14 recites an apparatus including:
a component tracking module operable to receive a
communication indicating that a component
includes a defect; the component tracking module
further including: a profile associated with the
component and operable to store information
gathered during manufacture and use of the
Appeal 2009-005552
Application 10/218,720

10
component, wherein the component includes a
bumpy bar code coupled thereto and operable to
identify the component by a serial number stored
in the component tracking module, the component
being designated as scrap in the component
tracking module in response to receiving the
communication.

3. Claim 25 recites a system including,
means for receiving a communication indicating
that a component includes a defect in a computer
tracking module; means for associating the
component with a bumpy bar code corresponding
to a serial number stored in the component
tracking module, the component being designated
as scrap in response to receiving the
communication.

4. Claim 38 recites software embodied in a computer readable
medium and operable to “receive a communication indicating that
a component includes a defect in a component tracking module;
associate the component with a bumpy bar code corresponding to a
serial number stored in the component tracking module, the
component being designated as scrap in response to receiving the
communication.”
5. Claim 10 depends from claim 1 and recites:
providing access to the component tracking
module via a website that is operable to provide an
interface between the component tracking module
and a plurality of manufacturing entities that
collectively form a manufacturing process for the
component, the website being further operable to
facilitate communications between each of the
entities and the component tracking module.
Appeal 2009-005552
Application 10/218,720

11

6. Claim 22 depends from claim 14 and recites:
a website operable to provide access to the
component tracking module via a website the is
operable to provide an interface between the
component tracking module and a plurality of
manufacturing entities that collectively form a
manufacturing process for the component, the
website facilitating communications between each
of the entities and the component tracking module.

7. Claim 34 depends from claim 25 and recites
means for providing access to the component
tracking module via a website operable to provide
an interface between the component tracking
module and a plurality of manufacturing entities
that collectively form a manufacturing process for
the component, the website being further operable
to facilitate communications between each of the
entities and the component tracking module.

8. Claim 47 depends from claim 38 and recites that the software is
further operable to:
provide access to the component tracking module
via a website operable to provide an interface
between the component tracking module and a
plurality of manufacturing entities that collectively
form a manufacturing process for the component,
the website being further operable to facilitate
communications between each of the entities and
the component tracking module.

9. The Specification does not contain an express definition of
“website.”
Appeal 2009-005552
Application 10/218,720

12
10. A definition of “website” is “a collection of files, documents, and
graphics that someone has made generally available to others
through the Internet.” See White, Ron. How Computers Work, pp.
268. (4th ed. 1998).
11. Claim 12 depends from claim 11 and recites “identifying an
additional component for investigation of the defect based on a
selected one of the manufacturing characteristics and the historical
data that are included in the profile and that are shared by both the
components.”
12. Claim 23 depends from claim 14 and recites:
the component tracking module is further operable
to identify an additional component for
investigation of the defect based on the profile
stored in the component tracking module, and
wherein the additional component is identified for
the investigation based on a selected one of
manufacturing characteristics and historical data
that are included in the profile and that are shared
by both the components.

13. Claim 36 depends from claim 35 and recites “means for identifying
an additional component for investigation of the defect based on a
selected one of the manufacturing characteristics and the historical
data that are included in the profile and that are shared by both the
components.”
14. Claim 49 depends from claim 48 and that the software is further
operable to “identify an additional component for investigation of
the defect based on a selected one of the manufacturing
Appeal 2009-005552
Application 10/218,720

13
characteristics and the historical data that are included in the
profile and that are shared by both the components.”
15. The Specification does not contain an express definition of
“scrap.”
16. The definition of “scrap” is “[d]iscarded waste material, esp. metal
suitable for reprocessing.” See Webster’s II New Riverside
University Dictionary, pp. 1048 (1984)(Third entry for “scrap”).
The scope and content of the prior art
Cantwell
17. Cantwell describes using a bumpy bar code on an article during the
manufacturing process. Col. 3, ll. 34-51.
18. Cantwell teaches that an effective way to identify each product for
tracking and inventory control purposes is to label it with a bar
code. Col. 3, ll. 22-24.
19. Cantwell states “[t]he use of bar codes during manufacture for
work-in-process tracking, inventory control, work piece routing,
etc., has become a valuable tool.” Col. 3, ll. 60-62.
Hassel
20. Hassel describes using a read/write enabled chip card to keep
product and production data with a product during manufacturing,
assembly, services, and recycling. Col. 1, ll. 20-23.
21. Hassel describes that the chip card contains basic product data
including a product ID, which for example could be a motor
vehicle chassis number. Col. 2, ll. 32-36 and ll. 44-45.
22. Hassel describes that during final testing, a read-write device SL2
records additional data on the chip card, such as QA data, test
Appeal 2009-005552
Application 10/218,720

14
results, and parts and/or semi finished products that were used or
missing or modified. Col. 3, ll. 6-12.
23. Hassel describes that product may require rework and that
additional data is recorded to the chip card during the rework step,
such as QA data, test results, rework sequence actual, and rework
documentation. Col. 3, ll. 19-22 and Fig. 3A.
24. Hassel describes that the data of the chip card can be archived in
mass storage devices at predefinable points of the product’s
lifetime. Col. 1, l. 66 – col. 2, l. 2.
25. Hassel describes that after manufacturing the product is shipped
with the chip card and that a user can add additional service-
relevant data to the chip card. Col. 3, ll. 23-30
John Deere
26. John Deere describes using bumpy bar codes to trace key
components of engines through production cycle and product life
cycle. Paragraphs 3 and 4.
27. John Deere states, “Deere wanted a traceability method that would
allow immediate identification of specific engines, as well as key
components within those engines.” Paragraph 2.
28. John Deere describes that information is captured at numerous
points during the manufacture. Paragraph 4.
29. John Deere describes that the information from the bumpy bar
code system is in a database. Paragraph 5.
Any differences between the claimed subject matter and the prior art
30. Cantwell does not describe providing access to the component
tracking module via a website that is operable to provide an
Appeal 2009-005552
Application 10/218,720

15
interface between the component tracking module and a plurality
of manufacturing entities.
31. Hassel does not describe providing access to the component
tracking module via a website that is operable to provide an
interface between the component tracking module and a plurality
of manufacturing entities.
32. John Deere does not describe providing access to the component
tracking module via a website that is operable to provide an
interface between the component tracking module and a plurality
of manufacturing entities.
The level of skill in the art
33. Neither the Examiner nor the Appellants have addressed the level
of ordinary skill in the pertinent art of information management.
We will therefore consider the cited prior art as representative of
the level of ordinary skill in the art. See Okajima v. Bourdeau, 261
F.3d 1350, 1355 (Fed. Cir. 2001) (“[T]he absence of specific
findings on the level of skill in the art does not give rise to
reversible error ‘where the prior art itself reflects an appropriate
level and a need for testimony is not shown’”) (Quoting Litton
Indus. Prods., Inc. v. Solid State Sys. Corp., 755 F.2d 158, 163
(Fed. Cir. 1985)).
34. It is within the knowledge of one of ordinary skill in the art that the
Internet is a network.
35. It is within the knowledge of one of ordinary skill in the art that a
website on the Internet can be used to access data.

Appeal 2009-005552
Application 10/218,720

16
Secondary considerations
36. There is no evidence on record of secondary considerations of non-
obviousness for our consideration.

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).
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
Appeal 2009-005552
Application 10/218,720

17
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 1, 4-7, 14, 17-19, 25, 28-31, 38, and 41-44 under 35
U.S.C. §103(a) as being unpatentable over Cantwell and Hassel.
Claims 1 and 4-7
The Appellants argued claims 1 and 4-7 as a group (App. Br. 6). We
select claim 1 as the representative claim for this group, and the remaining
claims 4-7 stand or fall with claim 1. 37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(1)(vii) (2007).
The Appellants argue that the result of the combination of Cantwell
and Hassel fails to teach the steps of 1) receiving a communication
indicating that a component includes a defect in a component tracking
module, 2) associating the component with a bumpy bar code corresponding
Appeal 2009-005552
Application 10/218,720

18
to a serial number stored in the component tracking module, and 3) the
component being designated as scrap in response to receiving the
communications. App. Br. 7-8. The Examiner’s rejection proposed
modified Cantwell’s bumpy bar code system with Hassel’s secure paperless
device for product data management and the associated documentation. Ans.
4.
We find that the Examiner’s combination of Cantwell and Hassel
teaches all three of the steps at issue. First, we find that Hassel teaches the
claimed step of “receiving a communication indicating that a component
includes a defect in a component tracking module.” FF 1. In the rejection,
the Examiner asserted that the claimed “component tracking module” is the
chip card of Hassel. Ans. 9. Hassel describes that in the final testing stage
of manufacturing a read-write device records data, such as quality assurance
data, test results, and parts that were missing, on the chip card. FF 20 and
22. We find that this description reads on the claimed step of receiving a
communication indicating that a component includes a defect in a
component tracking module. The chip card receives the data (i.e. a
communication) from the read-write device. Quality assurance data, test
results data, and missing parts data would indicate a defect in a defective
component.
Second, we find that the proposed combination of Cantwell and
Hassel results in the claimed step of “associating the component with a
bumpy bar code corresponding to a serial number stored in the component
tracking module.” FF 1. Cantwell describes using a bumpy bar code on a
product to track each product through the manufacturing process. FF 17-19.
Hassel describes storing a product ID on the chip card. FF 21. This
Appeal 2009-005552
Application 10/218,720

19
description reads on storing a serial number in the component tracking
module. When Cantwell and Hassel are combined as proposed by the
rejection, the bumpy bar code would correspond to the product ID on the
chip card since both are IDs used to track each product through the
manufacturing process. This combination is no more that combining prior
art elements according to their established function to achieve a predictable
result.
Third, we find that that Hassel teaches the claimed step of “the
component being designated as scrap in response to receiving the
communication.” FF 1. We note that the claim does not specify the manner
of making the designation, but broadly recites designating the component as
scrap. We give “scrap” its broadest reasonable meaning consistent with the
specification and find that the meaning of “scrap” is discarded waste
material, especially metal suitable for reprocessing. FF 15-16. “[D]uring
examination proceedings, claims are given their broadest reasonable
interpretation consistent with the [S]pecification.” In re Hyatt, 211 F.3d
1367, 1372 (Fed. Cir. 2000). See also In re Prater, 415 F.2d 1393, 1404-05
(CCPA 1969); In re Am. Acad. of Sci. Tech Ctr., 367 F.3d 1359, 1364, (Fed.
Cir. 2004). Therefore, we construe the limitation to include designating the
component for rework processing in response to receiving the
communication.
Hassel teaches that some products may require rework and that
rework data is written to the chip card. FF 23. We find that this teaches the
claimed step of “designating the component as scrap in response to receiving
the communication that the component includes a defect” as we have
construe the limitation above.
Appeal 2009-005552
Application 10/218,720

20
We find that the Examiner’s combination of Cantwell and Hassel
teaches all three of the steps at issue. Accordingly, we find that the
Appellants have not shown that the Examiner erred in rejecting claim 1, and
claims 4-7 dependent thereon, under 35 U.S.C. §103(a) as being
unpatentable over Cantwell and Hassel.
Claims 14 and 17-19
The Appellants argued claims 14 and 17-19 as a group (App. Br. 9).
We select claim 14 as the representative claim for this group, and the
remaining claims 17-19 stand or fall with claim 14. 37 C.F.R. §
41.37(c)(1)(vii) (2007).
The Appellants argue against the rejection of claim 14 for the same
reasons used to argue against the rejection of claim 1. App. Br. 9. We note
that claim 14 recites an apparatus with a component tracking module
operable to function similar to the steps recited in claim 1. FF 2. Because
we found Appellants’ argument unpersuasive as to rejection of claim 1, we
find them equally unpersuasive as to error in the rejection of claim 14.
Accordingly, the Appellants have not shown that the Examiner erred
in rejecting claim 14, and claims 17-19 dependent thereon, under 35 U.S.C.
§103(a) as being unpatentable over Cantwell and Hassel.
Claims 25 and 28-31
The Appellants argued claims 25 and 28-31 as a group (App. Br. 10).
We select claim 25 as the representative claim for this group, and the
remaining claims 28-31 stand or fall with claim 14. 37 C.F.R. §
41.37(c)(1)(vii) (2007).
Claim 25 recites limitations in means-plus-function form, which recite
functions similar to the steps recited in claim 1. FF 3. The Appellants do
Appeal 2009-005552
Application 10/218,720

21
not argue that Cantwell and Hassel fail to teach a structure equivalent to the
structure corresponding to these functions in the Specification. The
Appellants instead argue against the rejection of claim 25 for the same
reasons used to argue against the rejection of claim 1. App. Br. 10. Because
we found the Appellants’ argument unpersuasive as to rejection of claim 1,
we find them equally unpersuasive as to error in the rejection of claim 25.
The Appellants have not shown that the Examiner erred in rejecting claim
25, and claims 28-31 dependent thereon, under 35 U.S.C. §103(a) as being
unpatentable over Cantwell and Hassel.
Claims 38 and 41-44
The Appellants argued claims 38 and 41-44 as a group (App. Br. 10).
We select claim 38 as the representative claim for this group, and the
remaining claims 41-44 stand or fall with claim 14. 37 C.F.R. §
41.37(c)(1)(vii) (2007).
The Appellants argue against the rejection of claim 38 for the same
reasons used to argue against the rejection of claim 1. App. Br. 11. We note
that claim 38 recites software embodied in a computer readable medium and
operable to function similar to the steps recited in claim 1. FF 4. Because
we found the Appellants’ argument unpersuasive as to rejection of claim 1,
we find them equally unpersuasive as to error in the rejection of claim 38.
Accordingly, we find that the Appellants have not shown that the
Examiner erred in rejecting claim 38, and claims 41-44 dependent thereon,
under 35 U.S.C. §103(a) as being unpatentable over Cantwell and Hassel.

Appeal 2009-005552
Application 10/218,720

22
The rejection of claims 2-3, 8-9, 10-13, 15-16, 20-24, 26-27, 32-37, 39-40,
and 45-50 under 35 U.S.C. §103(a) as being unpatentable over Cantwell,
John Deere and Hassel.
Claims 10, 22, 34, and 47
Claim 10 recites “providing access to the component tracking module
via a website.” FF 5. We give “website” its broadest reasonable meaning
consistent with the specification and find that the meaning of “website” is a
collection of files, documents, and graphics that someone has made
generally available to others through the Internet. FF 9-10. Therefore, we
construe claim 10 to require providing access to the component tracking
module via a collection of files, document, or graphic available through the
Internet.
In rejecting claims 10, 22, 34, and 47, the Examiner admits, Hassel
does not specifically disclose accessing the component tracking module via
a website, but points out that Hassel discloses using several read-write
device at various locations of the manufacturing process. Ans. 4. Further, the
Examiner also asserts that John Deere teaches a system where multiple
stations provide information into a database. Ans. 19. The Examiner
concludes that it would be obvious that this requires a networked computer
based factory inventory control system with a database. Ans. 4.
We agree with the Examiner that one of ordinary skill in the art would
find that both Hassel and John Deere describe systems which are in a
manufacturer’s network. FF 20, 22-24 and 28-29. We also agree that
Hassel teaches shipping the chip card with the product and using the data on
the chip card subsequent outside of the manufacturing process. FF 25.
Further, we find that it is within the knowledge of one of ordinary skill in the
Appeal 2009-005552
Application 10/218,720

23
art that the Internet is a network where a data can be access via a website. FF
34-35. Given the above teachings of the references and the above finding,
we find the providing access to the tracking control module via a website as
recited in claim 12, would be no more that combining elements of t the prior
art and the knowledge of one of ordinary skill in the art according to their
established functions to achieve a predictable result.
We note that claim 22 recites an apparatus that further comprises a
website similar to the website provided in claim 10 (FF 6), claim 34 recites
an apparatus which includes a means for performing the step recited in claim
10 (FF 7), and claim 47 recites an article having software that is operable to
perform the step recited in claim 10 (FF 8). The Appellants argue against
the rejection of these claims for the same reasons used to argue against the
rejection of claim 12. App. Br. 11-13. Because we found Appellants’
argument unpersuasive as to rejection of claim 10, we find them equally
unpersuasive as to error in the rejection of claims 22, 34, and 47.
Accordingly, we find that the Appellants have not shown that the
Examiner erred in rejecting claims 10, 22, 34, and 47 under 35 U.S.C.
§103(a) as being unpatentable over Cantwell, John Deere, and Hassel.
Claims 12, 23, 36, and 49
Claim 12 recites “identifying an additional component for
investigation of the defect based on a selected one of the manufacturing
characteristics and the historical data that are included in the profile and that
are shared by both components.” FF 11. We note that Deere describes a
traceability method that includes identifying specific engines as well as key
components within those engines. FF 27. A key component is an additional
Appeal 2009-005552
Application 10/218,720

24
component. We find that one of ordinary skill in the art would have been led
by Cantwell, John Deere, and Hassel to the limitation recited in claim 12.
We note that claim 23 recites an apparatus where the component
tracking module is further operable to perform the step recited in claim 12
(FF 12), claim 36 recites an apparatus which includes a means for
performing the step recited in claim 12 (FF 13), and claim 49 recites an
article having software that is operable to perform the step recited in claim
12 (FF 14). The Appellants argue against the rejection of these claims for
the same reasons used to argue against the rejection of claim 12. App. Br.
13-14. Because we found Appellants’ argument unpersuasive as to rejection
of claim 12, we find them equally unpersuasive as to error in the rejection of
claims 23, 36, and 49.
Accordingly, we find that the Appellants have not shown that the
Examiner erred in rejecting claims 12, 23, 36, and 49 under 35 U.S.C.
§103(a) as being unpatentable over Cantwell, John Deere, and Hassel.
Claims 2-3, 8-9, 11, 13, 15-16, 20, 21, 24, 26-27, 32, 33, 35, 37, 39,
40, 45, 46, 48, and 50
We also shall sustain the standing 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) rejection of
dependent claims 2-3, 8-9, 11, 13, 15-16, 20, 21, 24, 26-27, 32, 33, 35, 37,
39, 40, 45, 46, 48, and 50 as being unpatentable over Cantwell, John Deere,
and Hassel since the Appellants have not challenged such with any
reasonable specificity, thereby allowing claims 2-3, 8-9, 11, 13, 15-16, 20,
21, 24, 26-27, 32, 33, 35, 37, 39, 40, 45, 46, 48, and 50 to stand or fall with
parent claims 1, 14, 25, and 38. (See In re Nielson, 816 F.2d 1567, 1572
(Fed. Cir. 1987)).

Appeal 2009-005552
Application 10/218,720

25
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
We conclude that the Appellants have not shown that the Examiner
erred in rejecting:
claims 1, 4-7, 14, 17-19, 25, 28-31, 38, and 41-44 under 35 U.S.C.
§103(a) as unpatentable over Cantwell and Hassel, and
claims 2-3, 8-13, 15-16, 20-24, 26-27, 32-37, 39-40, and 45-50 under
35 U.S.C. §103(a) as unpatentable over Cantwell, John Deere and Hassel.

DECISION
The decision of the Examiner to reject claims 1-50 is affirmed.
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).
AFFIRMED

mev

Siemens Corporation
Intellectual Property Department
186 Wood Avenue South
Iselin NJ 08830