Ex Parte Jollie et al

Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences

Aug 31, 2010

09974377 (B.P.A.I. Aug. 31, 2010)

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