Ex Parte Lee et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Nov 29, 2016

13852498 (P.T.A.B. Nov. 29, 2016)

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.
13/852,498 03/28/2013 Jason S. Lee RPS920070221US3 5520
(106DIVC)
66912 7590
CRGO LAW
7900 Glades Road
SUITE 520
BOCA RATON, EL 33434
12/01/2016 EXAMINER
CUMBESS, YOLANDA RENEE
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
3651
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
12/01/2016 ELECTRONIC
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.
Notice of the Office communication was sent electronically on above-indicated "Notification Date" to the
following e-mail address(es):
docketing@crgolaw.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte JASON S. LEE, IVORY W. KNIPFER, ANTOINE SATER,
MANIVANNAN THAVASI, and YAJUN TU
Appeal 2014-0087011
Application 13/852,4982
Technology Center 3600
Before TARA L. HUTCHINGS, AMEE A. SHAH, and
MATTHEW S. METERS, Administrative Patent Judges.
HUTCHINGS, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Appellants appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Examiner’s
rejection of claims 1—3 and 15—17. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C.
§ 6(b).
1 Our decision references Appellants’ Appeal Brief (“App. Br.,” filed Apr.
14, 2014) and Reply Brief (“Reply Br.,” filed Aug. 9, 2014), and the
Examiner’s Answer (“Ans.,” mailed June 9, 2014) and Final Office Action
(“Final Act.,” mailed Nov. 6, 2013).
2 Appellants identify International Business Machines Corporation as the
real party in interest. App. Br. 2.
Appeal 2014-008701
Application 13/852,498
We REVERSE.
CLAIMED INVENTION
Appellants’ claimed invention “relates to integrated supply chain
management and more particularly to a distribution management system
utilizing user-defined space characteristics and staging analysis.” Spec. 11.
Claims 1 and 15 are the independent claims on appeal. Claim 1,
reproduced below, is illustrative:
1. A method for staging items in a manufacturing
environment, the method comprising:
defining attributes of staging locations in a distribution
area of the manufacturing environment;
modeling a set of staging strategies for use in the
distribution area of the manufacturing environment based on the
characteristics of manufactured items and any other user-defined
parameters;
receiving a manufactured item in the distribution area and
obtaining characteristics of the manufactured item;
comparing the obtained characteristics of the
manufactured item to the set of staging strategies to select a
staging strategy to apply to the manufactured item; and
applying the selected staging strategy to the manufactured
item to assign the manufactured item to storage in one of the
staging locations available under the selected staging strategy
based on matching the obtained characteristics of the
manufactured item to the defined attributes of the one of the
available staging locations.
REJECTION
Claims 1—3 and 15—17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) as
anticipated by Gaug (US 2006/0271234 Al, pub. Nov. 30, 2006).
2
Appeal 2014-008701
Application 13/852,498
ANALYSIS
We are persuaded by Appellants’ argument that the Examiner erred in
rejecting independent claims 1 and 15 under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) because
Gaug does not disclose the combination of “modeling a set of staging
strategies for use in the distribution area of the manufacturing environment
based on the characteristics of manufactured items and any other user-
defined parameters,” “comparing the obtained characteristics of the
manufactured item to the set of staging strategies to select a staging strategy
to apply to the manufactured item,” and “applying the selected staging
strategy to the manufactured item to assign the manufactured item to storage
in one of the staging locations available under the selected staging strategy
based on matching the obtained characteristics of the manufactured item to
the defined attributes of the one of the available staging locations,” as recited
in claim 1, and similarly in claim 15. App. Br. 5—9. The Examiner cites
paragraphs 31—32, 35—36, 42-43, and 63 as disclosing the argued
combination of features. Final Act. 4; see also Ans. 7 (citing Gaug ]Hf 27,
31—32, 42 43, 63). However, we agree with Appellants that there is nothing
in the cited portions that discloses the argued limitations, as called for in
claims 1 and 15.
Gaug relates to the management and processing of pallets and
containers through a facility. Gaug 13. A server generates storage
assignments for pallets in a facility, creates schedules for moving and
processing pallets, and generates alerts. Id. ^ 31. Facility personnel use a
personal data assistant (“PDA”) to send intra facility pallet movement data
and pallet consumption data to the server. Id. 135. And the server
generates storage assignments, schedules, inventory, and alert information
3
Appeal 2014-008701
Application 13/852,498
that can be accessed by the facility personnel based on various data from
databases and interfaces. Id. 1135-36.
The Examiner takes the position that Gaug discloses selecting a
staging strategy when the system creates a storage assignment to choose a
storage location based on logic and business rules. Ans. 7 (citing Gaug
1131—32, 63). Although we agree with the Examiner that Gaug describes
applying rules to select a storage location, we find nothing in the cited
portions that describes modeling a set of staging strategies, let alone
comparing obtained characteristics of the manufactured item to the set of
strategies and applying a selected staging strategy to the manufactured item,
as required by claims 1 and 15.
In view of the foregoing, we do not sustain the rejection under 35
U.S.C. § 102(b) of claims 1 and 15. For the same reasons, we also do not
sustain the rejection under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) of dependent claims 2, 3, 16,
and 17.
DECISION
The Examiner’s rejection of claims 1—3 and 15—17 under 35 U.S.C.
§ 102(b) is reversed.
REVERSED
4