Ex Parte Jollie et alDownload PDFBoard of Patent Appeals and InterferencesAug 31, 201009974377 (B.P.A.I. Aug. 31, 2010) Copy Citation UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE ____________ BEFORE THE BOARD OF PATENT APPEALS AND INTERFERENCES ____________ Ex parte EDWARD JOLLIE, PAUL J. MARKOWSKI, STEPHEN T. MCDONALD, and MICHAEL P. MURRAY ____________ Appeal 2009-013301 Application 09/974,377 Technology Center 3600 ____________ Before MURRIEL E. CRAWFORD, HUBERT C. LORIN, and BIBHU R. MOHANTY, Administrative Patent Judges. CRAWFORD, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL1 1 The two-month time period for filing an appeal or commencing a civil action, as recited in 37 C.F.R. § 1.304, or for filing a request for rehearing, as recited in 37 C.F.R. § 41.52, begins to run from the “MAIL DATE” (paper delivery mode) or the “NOTIFICATION DATE” (electronic delivery mode) shown on the PTOL-90A cover letter attached to this decision. Appeal 2009-013301 Application 09/974,377 2 STATEMENT OF THE CASE Appellants seek our review under 35 U.S.C. § 134 (2002) of the Examiner’s final decision rejecting claims 14, 16 to 18, 20, 21, 23, 24, 26, and 28. We have jurisdiction over the appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b) (2002). We REVERSE. Claim 14 is illustrative: 14. A method for aggregating demand from multiple demand calculation systems running independently, said method comprising: receiving, by a merging unit, parts demand data output from at least two independent demand calculation systems for at least two divisions of an organization, wherein said independent demand calculation systems comprise automated materials requirements planning-(MRP) systems, and wherein feeding of said parts demand data from said independent demand calculation systems to said merging unit is automatically triggered by running of said independent demand calculation systems such that the most current parts demand data is received; aggregating said parts demand data from said at least two independent demand calculation systems to produce an overall demand data for parts needed by said organization; and storing said overall demand data in an information warehouse in a common format. Appeal 2009-013301 Application 09/974,377 3 The Examiner relies on the following prior art references as evidence of unpatentability: Bhaskaran US 6,157,915 Dec. 5, 2000 Lidow US 6,889,197 B2 May 3, 2005 Appellants appeal the following rejections: 1. Claims 14 and 16 to 18 under 35 U.S.C. § 102(e) as anticipated by Lidow. 2. Claims 20, 21, 23, 24, 26, and 28 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Lidow in view of Bhaskaran. ISSUE Did the Examiner err in finding that Lidow discloses a method of aggregating demand from multiple demand calculation systems including the step of feeding parts demand data from an independent demand calculation system which is automatically triggered by running the independent demand system? FACTUAL FINDINGS Lidow discloses a receiving supply chain network wherein customer demand data from an independent demand calculation system is fed through electronic data interchange, an email, and EDI purchase order, or through extensive markup language (XML) communication (col. 9, ll. 27 to 32). The supply chain network is implemented using a cadence where all transactions are linked to one another and performed on a regular basis (col. 6, ll. 57 to 62). Appeal 2009-013301 Application 09/974,377 4 ANALYSIS The Appellants argue that Lidow does not disclose that the feeding of parts demand data from an independent demand calculation system is automatically triggered by running of the independent demand system. We agree with the Appellants that the disclosure that the supply chain network is implemented using a cadence is a disclosure that the transactions are performed on a predetermined periodic basis. This disclosure does not teach that any event triggers the feeding of parts demand data. In addition, the Examiner has not directed our attention to any disclosure in Lidow that discloses that the running of the independent demand calculation systems trigger anything at the demand calculation network. Rather, Lidow discloses that the demand data is fed on a regular or rhythmic basis unconnected to the running of the independent demand systems. In view of the foregoing, we will not sustain the Examiner’s rejection of claim 14 or claims 16 to 18 dependent thereon under 35 U.S.C. § 102(e). We will also not sustain the Examiner’s rejection of claims 20-21 and claims 23, 24, 26, and 28 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Lidow in view of Bhaskaran. Claim 21 from which claims 23, 24, and 26 depend like claim 14 from which claim 28 depends also recites that the feeding of demand parts data is automatically triggered by running of the independent demand calculation systems. The Examiner relies on Lidow for this teaching. As such this rejection also fails. Appeal 2009-013301 Application 09/974,377 5 DECISION We REVERSE the Examiner’s 35 U.S.C. §§ 102(e) and 103(a) rejections. REVERSED hh FREDERICK W. GIBB, III Gibb Intellectual Property Law Firm, LLC 844 West Street SUITE 100 ANNAPOLIS, MD 21401 Copy with citationCopy as parenthetical citation