Ex Parte Hirth

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Jun 26, 2014

11166464 (P.T.A.B. Jun. 26, 2014)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
United States Patent and Trademark Office
Address: COMMISSIONER FOR PATENTS
P.O. Box 1450
Alexandria, Virginia 22313-1450
www.uspto.gov
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE FIRST NAMED INVENTOR ATTORNEY DOCKET NO. CONFIRMATION NO.
11/166,464 06/23/2005 Gerhard A. Hirth 6741P075 5232
45062 7590 06/27/2014
SAP/BSTZ
BLAKELY SOKOLOFF TAYLOR & ZAFMAN
1279 Oakmead Parkway
Sunnyvale, CA 94085-4040
EXAMINER
SYED, FARHAN M
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2165
MAIL DATE DELIVERY MODE
06/27/2014 PAPER
Please find below and/or attached an Office communication concerning this application or proceeding.
The time period for reply, if any, is set in the attached communication.
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
____________

BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
____________

Ex parte GERHARD HIRTH
____________

Appeal 2012-000779
Application 11/166,464
Technology Center 2100
____________

Before JEAN R. HOMERE, JOHN A. EVANS, and
LINZY T. McCARTNEY, Administrative Patent Judges.

EVANS, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL
Appellant1 seeks our review2 under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) of the
Examiner’s Final Rejection of Claims 1-153 as obvious. We have
jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).

1 The Real Party in Interest is SAP AG.
2 We have considered in this decision only those arguments Appellant
actually raised in the Briefs. Any other arguments which Appellant could
have made but chose not to make in the Briefs are deemed to be waived. See
37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(1)(iv).
3 App. Br. 5.
Appeal 2012-000779
Application 11/166,464

2
We AFFIRM.4
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Introduction
The claims relate to the planning and control of material and
information flows, and more particularly to systems for querying databases
representing material and information flows. Spec., ¶[0001].
Claims 1, 6, and 11 are independent. An understanding of the
invention can be derived from a reading of exemplary Claim 1, which is
reproduced below with disputed limitations italicized:
1. A system for querying at least one database, the
system comprising:
a calculation component for evaluating queries
concerning availability based on data in the at least one
database;
a user interface comprising a user input component and a
display;
wherein the user input component is configured to
acquire user data comprising a query concerning availability,
requested by a user to be evaluated by the calculation
component;
wherein the calculation component and the user interface
are coupled to transfer user data from the user interface to the

4 Our decision refers to Appellant’s Appeal Brief filed June 29, 2011 (“App.
Br.”); Reply Brief filed September 22, 2011 (“Reply Br.”); Examiner’s
Answer mailed July 29, 2011 (“Ans.”); Final Office Action mailed January
26, 2011 (“Final Rej.”); and the original Specification filed June 23, 2005
(“Spec.”).
Appeal 2012-000779
Application 11/166,464

3
calculation component and to transfer result data from the
calculation component to the user interface;
wherein the calculation component is configured to be
operable according to user data;
wherein the calculation component determines a quality
and volume of the result data, the quality and volume of the
result data indicate whether all result data from the query
concerning availability are to be displayed or whether result
data from the query which do not contribute to availability are
to be suppressed, the quality of result data being a measure of
the relevance of the result data with regard to the query
concerning availability, and the volume being a quantity of
data items to be displayed from the result data;
wherein the result data comprise at least one intermediate
and/or final result of a query concerning availability; and
wherein the display is configured to display result data.
Applied Prior Art
The Examiner relies on the following prior art in rejecting the claims::
Wilson et al. U.S. 2002/0133387 A1 Pub. Sep. 19, 2002
Horvitz et al. U.S. 2004/0153445 A1 Pub. Aug. 5, 2004
Friedrich et al., XML-based Available-to-Promise Logic for Small and
Medium Size Enterprises, Proceedings of the 35th Hawaiian International
Conference on System Sciences, 2002, pp. 1-10.

Appeal 2012-000779
Application 11/166,464

4
The Examiner’s Rejections
The claims stand rejected as follows:5
1. Claims 1, 2, 6, 7, 11, and 12 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C.
§103(a) as obvious over Wilson and Friedrich. Ans. 5-13.
2. Claims 3-5, 8-10, and 13-15 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C.
§103(a) as obvious over Wilson, Friedrich, and Horvitz. Ans. 13-19.

ISSUES ON APPEAL
Based on Appellant’s arguments in the Appeal Brief (App. Br. 6-11)
and Reply Brief (Reply Br. 2-7), the issues presented on appeal are:
I. Whether the Examiner erred in finding that Friedrich discloses
“the calculation component determines a quality and volume of the result
data.”
II. Whether the Examiner erred by finding that Wilson discloses
“the display is further configured to identify in the display of result data at
least one attribute.”

5 Based on Appellant’s arguments in the Appeal Brief, we will decide the
appeal on the basis of claims as set forth below. See 37 C.F.R. §
41.37(c)(1)(vii).

Appeal 2012-000779
Application 11/166,464

5
ANALYSIS
I. CLAIMS 1, 6, AND 11
We have reviewed the Examiner’s rejections in light of Appellant’s
arguments that the Examiner has erred. We disagree with Appellant’s
conclusions.
Appellant contends Friedrich does not teach “the calculation
component determines a quality and volume of the result data,” because the
specific price of the product, the amount of available units, and the number
of available suppliers represented by result data from Friedrich’s Available-
to-Promise (ATP) check is not the recited “quality and volume of the result
data.” App. Br. 6-7. Appellant argues the “quality of result data” is “a
measure of the relevance of the result data with regard to the query
concerning availability,” and the cited product price of Friedrich says
nothing about whether the data is relevant with regard to the ATP check.
App. Br. 7. Further, Appellant contends the “volume of the result data” is “a
quantity of data items to be displayed from the result data,” and the number
of units of a product and the number of available suppliers in Friedrich say
nothing about the number of data items that are displayed in an answer
inquiry document; specifically, the quantity of data items displayed in the
answer inquiry documents (i.e., four data items) is neither the number of
units of a product (i.e., 300 units) nor the number of available suppliers (i.e.,
two suppliers). Id.
Appeal 2012-000779
Application 11/166,464

6
Appellant also contends the cited portions of Friedrich do not teach
“the quality and volume of the result data indicate whether all data are
displayed, or data which do not contribute to availability are suppressed.”
App. Br. 8. Appellant argues that Sections 4.1-4.2 of Friedrich describe
documents that are generated during an ATP check, how the documents are
stored, and how a user manipulates these documents (e.g., display it, answer
it, move it to a different folder, or delete it), but these sections do not
mention the quality or the volume of any data, much less that the quality and
volume indicate whether to display or suppress data. Id. Appellant also
argues that Table 1 of Friedrich, which displays available product quantities,
is not the quality or volume of the result data and does not indicate whether
result data are to be displayed or suppressed. App. Br. 9. Finally, Appellant
contends that, even if the product price teaches the quality of the result data,
and the number of units and the number of suppliers teaches the volume of
the result data, the Examiner does not explain how this information indicates
whether data in an answer inquiry document are to be displayed or
suppressed. Id.
The Examiner finds Friedrich to teach the “quality and volume of
result data” in Section 4.4 and Figure 6, where Supplier B, C and D are
queried by Customer A for price and quantity data. Ans. 7. The Examiner
contends that Table 1 of Friedrich displays the available product supply, and
Figure 4 and 5 of Friedrich depict answer inquiry document (e.g., results
data) that are to be displayed or suppressed (i.e., deleted or moved) based on
Appeal 2012-000779
Application 11/166,464

7
the progress of the ATP check of each document. Ans. 7; Advisory Action
mailed April 4, 2011, p. 2. The Examiner argues that, based on the
Appellant’s supplied definitions, “quality” is defined as “degree of worth”
and “volume” is defined as “amount or quantity.” Ans. 7-8 (See also
Applicant’s Arguments, p. 8, in the Amendment filed November 10, 2010).
The Examiner contends that these limitations of “quality and volume” are
subjective, the Specification does not elaborate on “quality and volume of
result data,” and no examples are given of parameters or requirements to
achieve such “result data,” therefore Wilson and Friedrich teaches the
claimed limitations under a broadest reasonable interpretation. Ans. 19-20.
Appellant replies that the Examiner used an improper basis for claim
interpretation, and therefore an improper basis for rejecting the claims.
Reply Br. 3. Appellant contends the claims should be interpreted using plain
meaning, and has provided dictionary definitions to clarify this meaning.
Reply Br. 3. Further, Appellant argues the claim language itself provides a
basis for clarification of “quality” and “volume,” specifically “the quality of
result data being a measure of the relevance of the result data with regard to
the query concerning availability, and the volume being a quantity of data
items to be displayed from the result data,” and the Examiner has ignored
this language and relied solely on dictionary definition. Reply Br. 4.
Appellant contends the scope of coverage for “quality” and “volume”
encompasses determining the volume and quality of the result data being
generated, not that the result data includes volume and quality data. Reply
Appeal 2012-000779
Application 11/166,464

8
Br. 5. Appellant argues that data items returned by a query that define price
and quality (i.e., result data including volume and quality data) are different
than values obtained by counting up the number of data items returned and
determining a relevance value for the returned data items (i.e., the volume
and quality of the result data), and the volume and quality of data resulting
from a query is analyzed to determine which data in the result data should be
displayed to a user and which data should be suppressed (i.e., not displayed)
to facilitate comprehension of the result data. Id.
Appellant further replies that the ATP quantity discussed by the
Examiner regarding Sections 2-4 of Friedrich is a number of items available
in inventory, and calculating this number is the result of the ATP process.
Reply Br. 5. Appellant contends that the Examiner has not shown that any
analysis of this result generates a quality or volume metric, and that the
Examiner’s Answer fails entirely to address the Appellant’s arguments
related to the use of the quality and volume data to display or suppress the
result data. Id.
We disagree with the Appellant’s conclusions. The Examiner cites
Section 4.4 of Friedrich to teach “the calculation component determines a
quality and volume of the result data.” Ans. 7. In that example, Customer A
creates an inquiry for 400 units of a product for up to 24.00 USD per unit
and sends it to Suppliers B, C, and D. In response to this inquiry, Supplier B
can deliver 300 units at 24.00 USD, Supplier D can deliver 280 units at
22.50 USD, and Supplier C does not respond. The software then combines
Appeal 2012-000779
Application 11/166,464

9
these results into order documents to fill Customer A’s need of 400 units:
280 units at 22.50 USD (i.e., all of Supplier D’s offer), and 120 units at
24.00 USD (i.e., a portion of Supplier B’s offer, needed to reach 400 total
units). The software (i.e., “calculation component”) determined the quality
of the data, in that 280 parts at the best price should be ordered from
Supplier D, and only 120 more parts are needed from Supplier B to fill the
order. Therefore, we find Friedrich to teach “the quality of result data being
a measure of the relevance of the result data with regard to the query
concerning availability,” in that the calculation component determined the
best combination of units and price from the Supplier’s answer documents to
meet the Customer’s needs, and returned only the data it measured as
“relevant with regard to the query concerning availability.”
Further, the software of Friedrich returns only the data relevant to
meeting Customer A’s needs (280 units and 120 units), and leaves out other
data such as the total number of units available from each supplier, as well
as data that indicates a supplier was unable or unwilling to respond (e.g.,
Supplier C). Therefore, we find Friedrich to teach “the volume of the result
data being a quantity of data items to be displayed from the result data,” in
that the software (calculation component) determines the quantity of data to
return and which data to leave out of the displayed order documents.
Finally, we find Friedrich to teach “the quality and volume of the
result data indicate whether all result data from the query concerning
availability are to be displayed or whether result data from the query which
Appeal 2012-000779
Application 11/166,464

10
do not contribute to availability are to be suppressed,” as explained above.
The software determines the price and quantity from each supplier, then
displays only that data which is relevant to the Customer’s order (only the
units that add up to the requested 400 parts) and suppresses other data (total
units actually available from each Supplier, which supplier did not respond).
Because the Examiner relied upon Section 4.4 and Figure 6 of
Friedrich to teach the “calculation component determines quality and
volume of result data,” Appellant was on notice of the disclosure of
Friedrich as described above. Therefore, we find the Examiner did not err in
rejecting independent Claims 1, 6, and 11 under 35 U.S.C. §103(a).

II. CLAIMS 2, 7, AND 12: WILSON
We have reviewed the Examiner’s rejections in light of Appellant’s
arguments that the Examiner has erred. We disagree with Appellant’s
conclusions.
Appellant contend the cited portions of Wilson do not teach “identify
in the display of result data at least one attribute exerting an effect on the at
least one result or a combination of results of a query concerning
availability.” App. Br. 10. Appellant argues the display of Wilson is a web
interface used by the customer to place orders for items, and Wilson does
not disclose that any attribute exerting an effect on a result of a query
concerning availability would be singled out, much less identified in the web
interface. Id.
Appeal 2012-000779
Application 11/166,464

11
The Examiner finds the promising engine of Wilson identifies and
displays the result data of a request, including at least one attribute exerting
an effect on the at least one result; where the customer inquiries are
displayed on a web page with the associated effect, and the nature of the
request is identified through data identifying the type of request, such as a
flag associated with each request. Ans. 8, 21. The Examiner contends the
web interface of Wilson that converts requests into XML documents or
XML-formatted request is analogous to the Appellant’s display, which may
convert the result data into tabular or graphical form or otherwise visualize
the result data and display them to the user. Ans. 21. The Examiner argues
that it is well-known in the art that XML-formatted data may be displayed in
a tabular or graphical form in an XML document, and that a flag is a type of
attribute that appears to exert effect on the at least one result, where the flag
is displayed in the web interface. Id.
Appellant reply that the Examiner does not explain or provide any
rationale as to the relevance of the XML tables to the recited elements of
these claims. Reply Br. 6. Appellant argues the cited sections of Wilson
indicate that a flag is part of a request, and not part of the results of a query.
We disagree with the Appellant’s conclusions. Appellant’s
Specification describes “attributes” with regard to Figure 3, and states that
“[v]arious attributes exerting an effect on the results of the availability check
can be identified in the display.” Spec., ¶[0038]. The attributes that are
identified in the display of Appellant’s Figure 3 include the requested
Appeal 2012-000779
Application 11/166,464

12
quantity and the product availability (520). Wilson discloses the data
displayed by the web interface includes attributes such as item [number or
description], item quantity requested, and item availability. Wilson,¶¶ 0037,
0041. Thus, we find Wilson to teach identifying in the display of result data
several attributes (e.g., item description, item quantity requested, item
availability) that exert an effect on the result of a query concerning
availability.
Therefore, we find the Examiner did not err in rejecting Claims 2, 7,
and 12 under 35 U.S.C. §103(a).
III. CLAIMS 3-5, 8-10, AND 13-15
Appellant contends that independent Claims 3-5, 8-10, and 13-15
include additional limitations, and thus, are separately patentable. App. Br.
11; Reply Br. 7. Because Appellants present no specific arguments
pertaining to Claims 3-5, 8-10, and 13-15, we will summarily sustain those
rejections. See In re Lovin, 652 F.3d 1349, 1357 (Fed. Cir. 2011) (“[T]he
Board reasonably interpreted Rule 41.37 to require more substantive
arguments in an appeal brief than a mere recitation of the claim elements and
a naked assertion that the corresponding elements were not found in the
prior art.”).

DECISION
The rejection of Claims 1-15 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) is
AFFIRMED.
Appeal 2012-000779
Application 11/166,464

13
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).

AFFIRMED

kme