Ex Parte Lokowandt et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Feb 16, 2017

12340337 (P.T.A.B. Feb. 16, 2017)

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.
12/340,337 12/19/2008 Bernhard Lokowandt 19798-0039001/2008P00287 8876
32864 7590 02/21/2017
FISH & RICHARDSON, P.C. (SAP)
PO BOX 1022
MINNEAPOLIS, MN 55440-1022
EXAMINER
NELSON, FREDA ANN
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
3628
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
02/21/2017 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):
PATDOCTC@fr.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte BERNHARD LOKOWANDT and ACHIM CLEMENS
Appeal 2014—007135
Application 12/340,337
Technology Center 3600
Before ANTON W. FETTING, JOSEPH A. FISCHETTI, and
NINA L. MEDLOCK, Administrative Patent Judges.
FETTING, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
STATEMENT OF THE CASE1
Bernhard Lokowandt and Achim Clemens (Appellants) seek review
under 35 U.S.C. § 134 of a final rejection of claims 1—22, 24, and 25, the
only claims pending in the application on appeal. We have jurisdiction over
the appeal pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
The Appellants invented a way of managing and processing orders.
Specification 1:3—5.
1 Our decision will make reference to the Appellants’ Appeal Brief (“App.
Br.,” filed January 17, 2014) and Reply Brief (“Reply Br.,” filed June 11,
2014), and the Examiner’s Answer (“Ans.,” mailed April 11, 2014), and
Final Action (“Final Act.,” mailed August 1, 2013).
Appeal 2014-007135
Application 12/340,337
An understanding of the invention can be derived from a reading of
exemplary claim 1, which is reproduced below (bracketed matter and some
paragraphing added).
1. A computer implemented method for management of goods
ordering, the method comprising:
[1] receiving a sales order,
from a sales requestor,
for a good,
wherein the sales order includes customer-specific
product requirements for the good;
[2] generating a sales product requirement specification
business object with the sales order,
the sales product requirement specification including the
customer-specific product requirements for the good;
[3] determining
a sub-set of the customer-specific product requirements
that will be satisfied in the production of the good
and
customer-specific product requirements not in the sub-set
that are not relevant to the production of the good
[4] identifying a planning requirement specification business
object model (PRS BO) that includes
requirements for goods
and
specification for fulfilling the requirements for the goods,
wherein the PRS BO includes at least some of the
customer-specific product requirements for the good for
which the sales order is received;
[5] creating a planning product requirement specification
using the PRS BO,
2
Appeal 2014-007135
Application 12/340,337
wherein the created planning product requirement
specification can produce the good having the sub-set of
the customer-specific product requirements that will be
satisfied in production of the good,
the sub-set excluding the customer-specific product
requirements that are not relevant to the production of the
good;
[6] determining a source of supply for at least one component
of the good
based on the planning product requirement specification;
[7] generating a plan for production of the good;
and
[8] storing the plan in memory.
The Examiner relies upon the following prior art:
Matsuzaki US 5,357,439
Hedge US 2002/0198757 A1
Kurihara US 2003/0208389 A1
Merker US 2004/0010442 A1
Yokoyama US 2004/0210467 A1
Rothenburg US 2007/0219656 A1
Oct. 18, 1994
Dec. 26, 2002
Nov. 6, 2003
Jan. 15,2004
Oct. 21,2004
Sept. 20, 2007
Claim 25 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 112, second paragraph, as
failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the invention.
Claims 1, 3—7, 9—11, 13, 15, 16, 18—20, and 24 stand rejected under
35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Kurihara, Yokoyama, and
Rothenburg.
Claims 2, 8, and 25 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
unpatentable over Kurihara, Yokoyama, Rothenburg, and Official Notice.
3
Appeal 2014-007135
Application 12/340,337
Claims 12 and 17 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
unpatentable over Kurihara, Yokoyama, Rothenburg, and Hedge.
Claim 14 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over
Kurihara, Yokoyama, Rothenburg, and Matsuzaki.
Claims 21 and 22 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
unpatentable over Kurihara, Yokoyama, Rothenburg, and Merker.
ISSUES
The issues of obviousness turn primarily on whether the applied prior art
describes a sub-set excluding customer-specific product requirements that
are not relevant to the production of a good.
FACTS PERTINENT TO THE ISSUES
The following enumerated Findings of Fact (FF) are believed to be
supported by a preponderance of the evidence.
Facts Related to Claim Construction
01. The disclosure contains no lexicographic definition of “sub­
set.”
Facts Related to Appellants ’ Disclosure
02. The disclosure does not describe a sub-set as being a proper
sub-set.
4
Appeal 2014-007135
Application 12/340,337
Facts Related to the Prior Art
Kurihara
03. Kurihara is directed to the creation of production plans.
Kurihara para. 1.
Yokoyama
04. Yokoyama is directed to production management methods
adapted to create production plannings of option specification
products derived from option applied standard specification
products. Yokoyama para. 1.
05. Yokoyama describes how conventional production systems are
generally classified into a so-called make-to-stock production
system based on mass production and a so-called make-to-order
production system based on job order production. Yokoyama
para. 2.
06. Yokoyama describes the structure master being modified to the
option structure on the basis of option information, after the
standard structure information has been copied. In the first place,
a record containing standard specification and option specification
codes which coincide with those of the desired structure is
retrieved and extracted from the structure modification master on
the basis of the option information. Now the structure is
modified. To this end, in an example, a child item is added to the
part for the option, another child item is replaced by yet another
child item in the part for the option, and a child item is deleted
from a part for the option. Yokoyama paras. 199—200.
5
Appeal 2014-007135
Application 12/340,337
Rothenburg
07. Rothenburg is directed to modeling manufacturing processes
for manufacturing and execution computing systems. Rothenburg
para. 1.
08. Rothenburg includes a bill of material filter to filter material
requirements that are not planning relevant. Rothenburg para. 47.
09. Rothenburg describes not all of the information as being
relevant to planning. For example, a planning user may only be
interested in scheduling a high level of granularity of the main
planning-level operations, and may not be interested in scheduling
at a detailed level of activities such as setup activities, tear down
activities, or the like. Rothenburg para. 49.
ANALYSIS
Claim 25 rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 112, second paragraph, as failing to
particularly point out and distinctly claim the invention
We summarily affirm this uncontested rejection.
Claims 1, 3—7, 9—11, 13, 15, 16, 18—20, and 24 rejected under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a) as unpatentable over Kurihara, Yokoyama, and Rothenburg
We are persuaded by Appellants’ argument that the applied prior art fails
to describe the sub-set excluding the customer-specific product requirements
that are not relevant to the production of the good. App. Br. 20.
6
Appeal 2014-007135
Application 12/340,337
The Examiner finds that Rothenburg describes excluding requirements
that are not planning relevant. Final Act. 6; Ans. 7. We agree.
Claim 1, however, as well as the other independent claims, recites
excluding product requirements that are not relevant to the production of the
good, rather than the planning of the good production. Rothenburg describes
excluding production details that are below some threshold of granularity for
planning purposes. These production details remain relevant to production,
just not to the planning needs for such production. We also note the
Examiner relies to some extent on the options in Yokoyama, Ans. 7, but
again option details, even details of deletions from standard bills of material,
are relevant to the production of the goods with the options.
The remaining claims either contain similar limitations or depend from
such claims.
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
The rejection of claim 25 under 35U.S.C. § 112, second paragraph, as
failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the invention is proper.
The rejection of claims 1, 3—7, 9—11, 13, 15, 16, 18—20, and 24 under
35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Kurihara, Yokoyama, and
Rothenburg is improper.
The rejection of claims 2, 8, and 25 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
unpatentable over Kurihara, Yokoyama, Rothenburg, and Official Notice is
improper.
7
Appeal 2014-007135
Application 12/340,337
The rejection of claims 12 and 17 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
unpatentable over Kurihara, Yokoyama, Rothenburg, and Hedge is
improper.
The rejection of claim 14 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over
Kurihara, Yokoyama, Rothenburg, and Matsuzaki is improper.
The rejection of claims 21 and 22 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
unpatentable over Kurihara, Yokoyama, Rothenburg, and Merker is
improper.
DECISION
The rejection of claims 1—22, and 24 is reversed.
The rejection of claim 25 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). See 37 C.F.R.
§ 1.136(a)(l)(iv) (2011).
AFFIRMED-IN—PART
8