Ex Parte Mueller

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Mar 27, 2013

11134900 (P.T.A.B. Mar. 27, 2013)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
____________________

BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
____________________

Ex parte KARL R. MUELLER
____________________

Appeal 2010-008138
Application 11/134,900
Technology Center 2100
____________________

Before DEBRA K. STEPHENS, JUSTIN BUSCH, and HUNG H. BUI,
Administrative Patent Judges.

BUSCH, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL

Appeal 2010-008138
Application 11/134,900

2
Appellant appeals under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from a non-final rejection
of claims 1, 3-11, and 13-38. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We AFFIRM.

Introduction
Appellant’s invention relates to a system and method for building and
providing a universal product configuration system for arbitrary domains.
Spec. § Abstract.

STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Exemplary Claim
Claim 1, reproduced below, is illustrative of the claimed subject
matter:
1. A computer-assisted universal product configuration
system, comprising:
a display device;
an input device;
a domain framework interface for receiving at least one
conceptual framework pertaining to at least one product
domain, said framework defining a universe of valid
commercially offered products pertaining to said at least one
product domain, said framework including a plurality of data
types;
a domain knowledge interface for receiving at least one
domain expert knowledge set pertaining to said at least one
product domain, said knowledge set including at least one
product attribute constraint or at least one product relationship
constraint, with the at least one product attribute constraint or
the at least one product relationship constraint ensuring
derivation of valid product configuration selection options; and

Appeal 2010-008138
Application 11/134,900

3
a processing unit operable to:
derive at least one valid commercially offered product
configuration selection option based upon said received
conceptual framework and said received knowledge set; and
construct a visual interface for display on said display
device and pertaining to said valid commercially offered
product configuration selection option, said visual interface
responsive to input received from said input device.

References
Fogelson US 2002/0099617 A1 Jul. 25, 2002
Sant US 2003/0050969 A1 Mar. 13, 2003
Berns US 2004/0153352 A1 Aug. 5, 2004
Susnjara US 6,801,218 B2 Oct. 5, 2004

Rejections
(1) Claims 1, 3-11, 13-22, 24, 25, 33, and 38 stand rejected under
35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Fogelson and Susnjara. Ans.
4-17.
(2) Claims 23, 26-32, 34, and 35 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a) as being unpatentable over Fogelson, Susnjara, and Sant. Ans. 17-
28.
(3) Claims 36 and 37 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
being unpatentable over Fogelson, Susnjara, Sant, and Berns. Ans. 28-32.

ISSUE 1
Appellant argues that Fogelson and Susnjara do not teach various
elements of independent claims 1, 11, 21, 24, 27, 30, 33, 36, and 38 as found
by the Examiner. App. Br. 10-17.
Appeal 2010-008138
Application 11/134,900

4
Issue 1: Does the combination of Fogelson and Susnjara teach or
suggest “at least one product attribute constraint or at least one product
relationship constraint, with the at least one product attribute constraint or
the at least one product relationship constraint ensuring derivation of valid
product configuration selection options” and “a processing unit operable to:
derive at least one valid commercially offered product configuration
selection option,” as recited in independent claim 1 and similarly recited in
independent claims 11, 21, 24, 27, 30, 33, 36, and 38?

ANALYSIS
Appellant argues Fogelson’s product offerings cited by the Examiner
“are not constraints as claimed and do not ensure derivation of valid product
configuration selection options as claimed.” App. Br. 10. Appellant further
argues “[t]he present invention extends beyond the mere selection or
adjustment of variables in a product offering” because the claimed
“constraint” is not merely a choice and “ensure[s] derivation of valid product
configuration selection options.” App. Br. 10; Reply 3; See also App. Br. 11-
12 (arguing the invention “goes far beyond the mere selection or adjustment
of variables in a product offering, which is essentially what the Examiner
has cited in Fogelson and Susnjara.”) and App. Br. 12-14 (providing an
example of what Appellant argues the invention is capable of but Fogelson
is not and concluding “Fogelson and Susnjara have nothing to do with
determining or deriving valid product configuration offerings as claimed in
the present application”). Appellant asserts that the product offerings
discussed in Fogelson “may be a ‘commercially offered product,’” but they
do not meet the recited constraints. App. Br. 10.
Appeal 2010-008138
Application 11/134,900

5
The Examiner finds that “constraint” can be broadly, but reasonably,
construed to include a cost of a product, the dimensions of products that
would be used in Fogelson’s “Builder’s Online Assistant,” or a choice
between two product options. Ans. 5, 33. The Examiner further finds
allowing only logical and physical configurations based on the frameworks
involved (argued by Appellant in a Response to an Office Action, dated
November 6, 2008) is not recited in the claims, and that Figure 27 of
Fogelson shows a selection with a specific configuration. Ans. 33-34.
We agree with the Examiner that to the extent Appellant argues
limitations not present in the claims, the arguments, including the scope of
the invention and descriptions of what the invention may be capable of, are
not commensurate with the scope of the claim language. While we construe
the claims in light of Appellant’s Specification, Appellant’s broad
arguments, when not tied to specific language recited in the claims, are
inapposite to our review of the claims presented. A review of Appellant’s
Specification reveals no explicit definitions and, at best, broad, exemplary,
and permissive (i.e., not limiting) descriptions. See, e.g., Spec. 4:19-5:2, 5:4-
6, and 10:2-8.
While we read the claims in light of the Specification, we will not
import limitations from Appellant’s Specification into the claims. We are not
persuaded by Appellant’s arguments that the language identified in the
claims (Reply 3-4) renders the Examiner’s construction unreasonably broad.
Therefore, we agree with the Examiner that Appellant’s claimed constraints
read on the cost and configuration constraints discussed in Fogelson.
Moreover, because Fogelson’s product options require that only valid
product configurations are selected, we find that Fogelson teaches or
Appeal 2010-008138
Application 11/134,900

6
suggests “constraint[s] ensuring derivation of valid product configuration
selection options,” as recited in independent claim 1 and similarly recited in
independent claims 11, 21, 24, 27, 30, 33, 36, and 38.
Appellant next argues that “a refrigerator product number is not a
processing unit, nor … operable to derive a valid product configuration
selection option.” App. Br. 10-11. Appellant also asserts the claims require
combining a conceptual framework with a knowledge set to ensure
derivation of the valid options.
The Examiner finds that it is unclear whether the recited “processing
unit” is a CPU or software code running on a CPU. Ans. 34. Regardless, the
Examiner finds Fogelson’s computer used to implement the system
inherently includes a “processing unit.” Ans. 34. The Examiner further finds
the meaning of the recited “derive at least one valid commercially offered
product configuration selection option” has two potential interpretations,
both of which read on the process, software, and/or result identified by
Figure 27 of Fogelson. Ans. 34.
We agree with the Examiner’s findings that: (1) a processing unit is
inherent to Fogelson’s computer-implemented system; and (2) Figure 27 of
Fogelson teaches or suggests deriving a valid commercially offered product
configuration selection option. Specifically, the products shown in Figure 27
of Fogelson are options of commercially offered products (refrigerators)
available that are derived by the Fogelson system based on the user-selected
constraints (e.g., style, design, price, material, and color). Contrary to
Appellant’s arguments that the examination was piecemeal (Reply 5), we
find the Examiner’s findings are supported by a preponderance of evidence
Appeal 2010-008138
Application 11/134,900

7
because the products and product constraints provided in Fogelson ensure
that Fogelson only derives valid configuration options.

ISSUE 2
Issue 2: Does the combination of Fogelson and Susnjara teach or
suggest “a first product domain” and “a second product domain,” as recited
in independent claims 21 and 24?

ANALYSIS
Appellant argues the Examiner has not shown the first and second
product domains, as recited in claims 21 and 24. App. Br. 14. Appellant
asserts “[t]he concept of multiple product domains is clear from the
specification, the pending claims,” and Appellant’s briefs. Reply 5.
Appellant also argues “[t]he ‘third party website provider’ in paragraph 0011
of Fogelson referenced by the Examiner does not meet the limitation of the
knowledge sets of the domain knowledge interface.” App. Br. 15.
The Examiner finds the Specification does not disclose a “first
product domain” or a “second product domain,” and therefore gives the
terms the broadest reasonable interpretation, mapping the domains to
different product types (e.g., floors, cabinets, counter tops, sinks). Ans. 35.
The Examiner finds the product relationship constraints can be the two types
of sinks offered. As discussed above, the Examiner also finds product costs
and dimensions to be the recited constraints. Ans. 36.
Giving the terms “first product domain” and second product domain”
the broadest reasonable interpretation in light of the Specification, we agree
with the Examiner’s findings that Fogelson discloses multiple product
Appeal 2010-008138
Application 11/134,900

8
domains, each domain including constraints. Ans. 35. For example, the
Examiner has discussed sinks as a domain with the options of two different
sinks as a constraint. The Examiner has also discussed the refrigerator
options shown in Figure 27 as valid product options, thus implicitly
identifying refrigerators as another domain with constraints, including the
user-selectable configuration options. Thus, we do not find Appellant’s
arguments persuasive.

ISSUE 3
Issue 3: Does the combination of Fogelson and Susnjara teach or
suggest “a processing unit operable to determine whether said at least one
product [configuration] selection is a valid configuration selection option for
each of said selected frameworks,” as recited in independent claims 27 and
30 and “a processing unit operable to: derive at least one valid window or
door product selection,” as recited in independent claim 36?

ANALYSIS
Independent Claims 27, 30 – Processing Unit
Appellant alleges the Examiner uses Susnjara to reject the processing
units recited in claims 27 and 30. App. Br. 15, 16. Appellant also asserts “the
Examiner states that Fogelson does not teach a processing unit operable to
determine whether the at least one product selection is a valid configuration
selection option for each of the selected frameworks based upon the stored
knowledge sets corresponding to the selected frameworks.” Reply 7. The
Examiner explains that Susnjara is used to disclose a processing unit, not the
function of the processing unit. Ans. 36.
Appeal 2010-008138
Application 11/134,900

9
Our review indicates the Examiner’s statement about what Fogelson
does not teach is limited to the “processing unit.” Ans. 36. The function of
the processing unit in claims 27 and 30 is substantially the same function
performed by the processing unit in claim 1. See Ans. 34. With respect to
claim 1, the Examiner applied Fogelson to teach the function, but relied
upon Susnjara for the teaching of the processing unit. Ans. 5. Moreover, as
we previously stated, the computer of Fogelson inherently includes a
processing unit. Ans. 34.

Independent Claims 36– Processing Unit & Door and Window
Industry Product
Appellant alleges that “Susnjara describes software packages that
permit adjustment of variables in the design of a cabinet, and does not show
the elements of this claim term.” App. Br. 16. Appellant also asserts “Berns
is a vendor referral system and does not show product constraints pertaining
to product configurations,” as recited in claim 36. App. Br. 17.
The Examiner finds “Susnjara is used to illustrate details in product
option selection.” Ans. 36. The Examiner also explains that Berns is used “to
map to the specific domains of windows and doors,” which, along with
Fogelson’s Builder On-Line Assistant, teaches or suggests the recited
limitation. Ans. 37.
We agree with the Examiner’s findings that: (1) Susnjara shows a
processing unit that derives valid product configuration options (Ans. 36);
(2) Fogelson teaches a processing unit; and (3) the combination of Berns and
Fogelson teaches or suggests the recited “constraint pertaining to a door and
window industry product.” Ans. 37. As explained by the Examiner,
Appeal 2010-008138
Application 11/134,900

10
Fogelson is directed to a “Builder On-Line Assistant.” Therefore, an
ordinarily skilled artisan would have understood dimensions of doors and
windows to be options that must be ensured to be valid in order to provide a
useful system. The selection of different products, including doors and
windows, would have been obvious to builders.

ISSUE 4
Appellant also argues that the Examiner’s rejection lacks a rationale to
support a conclusion of obviousness and that “applying, combining or
substituting any of the teachings of Susnjara, Sant or Berns with Fogelson
still only yields a system that enables a user to select a product already
known to be available.” App. Br. 17-23.
Issue 4: Did the Examiner err by not providing a sufficient
motivation to combine Fogelson, Susnjara, Sant, and Berns?

ANALYSIS
Appellant alleges that the Examiner has not articulated the reasons
why the claimed invention would have been obvious. App. Br. 18. However,
this section of Appellant’s brief merely reiterates alleged flaws in the
Examiner’s individual findings, cites some sections of the MPEP, and
provides a brief statement of what Appellant views as the teachings of
Susnjara, Sant, and Berns. App. Br. 17-22.
The Examiner has articulated “reasoning with some rational
underpinning to support the legal conclusion of obviousness,” In re Kahn,
441 F.3d 977, 988 (Fed. Cir 2006), in establishing that “there was an
apparent reason to combine the known elements in the fashion claimed,”
Appeal 2010-008138
Application 11/134,900

11
KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex, 550 U.S. 398, 418 (2007). See Ans. 4, 7, 11, 13,
18-32. Appellant has not presented sufficient evidence or argument to
persuade us the Examiner’s articulated reasoning was in error. Thus, we find
the Examiner has not erred in combining the references.

ISSUE 5
Issue 5a: Does the combination of Fogelson and Susnjara teach or
suggest “input device receives input in the form of a selection of a valid
product,” as recited in dependent claims 7 and 17?
Issue 5b: Does the combination of Fogelson and Susnjara teach or
suggest “wherein said framework or said knowledge set further includes a
plurality of product feature constraints or product combination constraints
for valid product selection,” as recited in dependent claims 10 and 20?

ANALYSIS
With respect to dependent claims 7 and 17, Appellant alleges
Fogelson’s “upon activation of the search key” is not equivalent to the
claimed “input device receives input in the form of a selection of a valid
product,” because the claim “requires that the valid product be selected from
the at least one derived valid product selection option of claim 1.” App. Br.
23. Regarding claims 10 and 20, Appellant argues that Figure 3 of Fogelson
“is merely a screen shot intended to show multiple products available for
selection,” and does not meet the recited “a plurality of product feature
constraints or product combination constraints for valid product selection.”
App. Br. 24.
Appeal 2010-008138
Application 11/134,900

12
The Examiner finds that providing a selection of valid options
available (e.g., “two types of sinks”) meets the recited “derivation of a valid
product selection,” and that “if Fogelson can produce a keyword search, then
it is inherent that a valid input is provided.” Ans. 38. The Examiner also
finds that the “listing of models with each model having a description of
itself” meets the recited “product feature constraints or products
combination” constraints for valid product selection. Ans. 39.
A system that provides only valid options and has a search feature that
returns a subset of those valid options meets the recited “input device
receives input in the form of a selection of a valid product from said at least
one derived valid product selection option.” We are not persuaded that the
broadest reasonable interpretation of the claims 7 and 17 and claims 10 and
20, in light of the Specification, do not read on the portions of Fogelson
identified by the Examiner.

DECISION
For the above reasons, the Examiner’s rejection of claims 1, 3-11, and
13-38 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)(1)(iv).

AFFIRMED

ELD