Ex Parte NochtaDownload PDFPatent Trial and Appeal BoardMay 6, 201611483478 (P.T.A.B. May. 6, 2016) Copy Citation UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE 111483,478 07/10/2006 58735 7590 05/10/2016 Fountainhead Law Group P.C. Chad R. Walsh 900 LAPA YETTE STREET SUITE 301 SANTA CLARA, CA 95050 FIRST NAMED INVENTOR Zoltan Nochta 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 ATTORNEY DOCKET NO. CONFIRMATION NO. 000005-001900US 7089 EXAMINER SHEIKH, ASFAND M ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 3627 NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE 05/10/2016 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@fountainheadlaw.com vhemandez@fountainheadlaw.com PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07) UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD Exparte ZOLTANNOCHTA Appeal2014-000656 1 Application 11/483,4782 Technology Center 3600 Before: KENNETH G. SCHOPPER, AMEE A. SHAH, and MATTHEWS. MEYERS, Administrative Patent Judges. SHAH, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL The Appellant appeals under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Examiner's decision finally rejecting claims 1, 4--10, 13-15, and 18-23 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Kostov,3 Clark,4 and Jorgenson. 5 We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). We affirm-in-part. 1 Throughout this opinion, we refer to the Appeal Brief ("Appeal Br.," filed Apr. 17, 2013), the Examiner's Answer ("Ans.," mailed Aug. 14, 2013), the Reply Brief ("Reply Br.," filed Oct. 10, 2013), the Final Office Action ("Final Act.," mailed Nov. 2, 2012), and the Specification ("Spec.," filed July 10, 2006). 2 According to the Appellant, the real party in interest is SAP AG. Appeal Br. 2. 3 Kostov, US 2006/0206410 Al, pub. Sept. 14, 2006. 4 Clark, US 7,664,688 B2, iss. Feb. 16, 2010. 5 Jorgenson, US 2002/0032497 Al, pub. Mar. 14, 2002. Appeal2014-000656 Application 11/483,478 STATEMENT OF THE CASE The Appellant's invention relates to "data management systems for managing product tracking data." Spec. i-f 2. Claims 1, 10, 15, and 23 are the independent claims on appeal. Claims 1 and 23, which we reproduce below, are illustrative of the subject matter on appeal: 1. A computer-implemented method of managing product tracking data for tracking products in a supply chain, said method comprising the steps of: storing, by a hardware component, a database; authorizing a first entity to have access to the database; accessing, by said first entity via a network, a data record in said database, wherein said data record is associated with a product to be tracked in said supply chain; associating, by said first entity, said data record with a second entity, wherein said second entity corresponds to an entity in said supply chain that will assume control over said product subsequent to said first entity, and wherein said second entity was unassociated with said supply chain prior to said first entity associating said data record with said second entity; authorizing said second entity to have access to said database in accordance with said data record having been associated, by said first entity, with said second entity; accessing, by said second entity via the network, said data record in said database; and authorizing said first entity to have partial access to said database, in accordance with said data record having been associated with said second entity. 2 Appeal2014-000656 Application 11/483,478 23. A computer-implemented method of managing an ad- hoc supply chain, said method comprising: storing, by a hardware component, a database that includes product tracking data for tracking products, wherein said product tracking data includes data that represents said ad-hoc supply chain in said hardware component; associating a data record in said database with a first entity, wherein said data record is associated with a product to be tracked in said ad-hoc supply chain; accessing, by said first entity via a network, said data record to indicate that said first entity has assumed control over said product in a step in said ad-hoc supply chain; creating in said database, by said first entity via the network, a first subsequent step in said data that represents said ad-hoc supply chain, wherein said first entity creates said first subsequent step by associating said data record with a second entity, wherein said second entity corresponds to an entity in said ad-hoc supply chain that will assume control over said product subsequent to said first entity; accessing, by said second entity via the network, said data record to indicate that said second entity has assumed control over said product in said first subsequent step in said ad-hoc supply chain; and creating in said database, by said second entity via the network, a second subsequent step in said data that represents said ad-hoc supply chain, wherein said second entity creates said second subsequent step by associating said data record with a third entity, wherein said third entity corresponds to an entity in said ad-hoc supply chain that will assume control over said product subsequent to said second entity, and wherein said second subsequent step did not exist in said data that represents said ad-hoc supply chain prior to said first subsequent step being created by said first entity. Appeal Br. 19, 23 (Claims App.). 3 Appeal2014-000656 Application 11/483,478 ANALYSIS Claims 1, 4-10, 13-15, and 18-22 The Appellant argues claims 1, 4--10, 13-15, and 18-22 as a group. Appeal Br. 13. We select claim 1 as representative of the group. Independent claims 10 and 15 recite substantially similar limitations as claim 1. Thus, claims 4--10, 13-15, and 18-22 stand or fall with claim 1. See 37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(l)(iv) (2014). The Appellant contends the rejection of claim 1 is in error because "the Examiner has failed to consider all the elements of claim 1." Appeal Br. 14. Specifically, the Appellant argues "the Examiner has failed to provide sufficient articulated reasoning to address all the words in the claim" because Kostov does not "provide any information regarding specifically how the different levels of access may be changed," and thus, does not disclose that the partial access is "in accordance with the data record being associated with the second entity" as claimed. Id. at 15. The Appellant argues that nothing in Kostov discloses that "a first trading partner associates information with a second trading partner, and as a consequence thereof the access of the first trading partners becomes partial access." Id. at 15-16. The Examiner finds that Kostov discloses storing a database of state models that are predefined and only associated with a particular transaction and can be defined by an administrator, a trading partner or a vendor (Final Act. 6-7); the trading partner can select what actions each trading partner can view (visibility) (id., Ans. 2-3 (citing Kostov, Figures 4A--4E, i-fi-122-24, 30)) and what actions cause the state changes to trigger the visibility of another trading partner. Final Act. 7-8; see also Ans. 2-3 (citing Kostov, Fig. 4D, i130). "For example, a supplier may be unable to view a 4 Appeal2014-000656 Application 11/483,478 transaction as a public draft of a buyer until it is committed." Kostov if 31; see also Ans. 3. Kostov further discloses that while the retailer (first entity) can have full visibility and action privileges, the state model can be defined such that the retailer does not have the access privilege to close a transaction. Ans. 3 (citing Kostov if 11 ). Thus, the Examiner finds that Kostov discloses associating, by the first entity (retailer trading partner), the data record (state model for transaction) with other trading partners such as a supplier (second entity) by defining the state model granting partial access to other partners. See Ans. 2-3; see also Final Act. 8. The Examiner further finds that once the supplier views the record (based on the association), the retailer only has partial access in that retailer cannot close the transaction, i.e., in accordance with the record being associated with the supplier. Ans. 4. However, although Kostov discloses that a first entity trading partner such as a retailer can determine access rights and associate other partners with the transaction in determining their access/visibility rights, it is not clear that Kostov discloses that the retailer's access rights can be partial rights in accordance with associating another trading partner to the transaction. Kostov discloses that the retailer can have partial access rights such as having all rights except for performing an action such as completing the transaction. Kostov, if 11; see also Spec. if 28 ("'Access' should be interpreted broadly to mean accessing data in order to read, write, create, update, modify, copy, delete, exercise control over, or otherwise manipulate the data"). Kostov further discloses that a supplier can have the rights to view certain details and to close the transaction (Kostov, if 11 ), but it is not clear that a connection or association exists between the supplier having the 5 Appeal2014-000656 Application 11/483,478 right to close or view (accessing) any information and the retailer being denied the right to close a transaction. In other words, the Examiner's finding that once the supplier views the record, the retailer only has partial access is not supported by a preponderance of the evidence. Thus, we agree that the Examiner has erred in the rejection of claim 1, and we do not sustain the rejection of claim 1, and also of claims 4--10, 13-15, and 18-22 which stand with claim 1.6 Claim 23 The Appellant contends the Examiner's rejection of claim 23 is in error because Kostov does not disclose "that the second entity creates a 'second subsequent step' in the supply chain data by associating the data record with a third entity, where the second subsequent step did not exist in the supply chain data prior to the first subsequent step being created by the first entity" as required by the claim. Appeal Br. 17. Specifically, the Appellant argues that Kostov does not disclose how to add a trading partner or "the specific way" to create subsequent steps as recited in claim 23, "namely by associating the data record with the third entity (the 'new trading partner' in Kostov's terminology)." Appeal Br. 17; see also Reply Br. 4. 6 Should there be further prosecution of this application, the Examiner may wish to consider reviewing all of the claims for compliance under 35 U.S.C. § 101 in light of the most recent Office guidance on § 101 found in the "July 2015 Update on Subject Matter Eligibility," 80 Fed. Reg. 146 (July 30, 2015), which supplements the "2014 Interim Guidance on Patent Subject Matter Eligibility," 79 Fed. Reg. 74618 (Dec. 16, 2014), and the "Preliminary Examination Instructions in view of the Supreme Court Decision in Alice Corporation Pty. Ltd. v. CLS Bank International, et al.," Memorandum to the Examining Corps, June 25, 2014. 6 Appeal2014-000656 Application 11/483,478 The Appellant's argument that Kostov does not disclose how to add a trading partner (Appeal Br. 17) is unpersuasive at least because it is not commensurate with the scope of the claim. Claim 23 does not recite adding a trading partner, but rather adding a step to associate a third entity. Moreover, the Appellant argues against Kostov individually when the Examiner relies on the combination of Kostov and Jorgenson to disclose the limitation at issue. Ans. 7. The test for obviousness is not what any one reference would have suggested, but rather what the combined teachings of the references would have suggested to those of ordinary skill in the art. See In re Keller, 642 F.2d413, 426(CCPA1981). "[O]ne cannot shownon- obviousness by attacking references individually were, as here, the rejections are based on combinations of the references." Id. The Appellant's argument that Kostov does not disclose creating a step (Appeal Br. 17; see also Reply Br. 4) is also not persuasive. Claim 23 recites that a step is created in the data that represents a supply chain, but does not define what comprises a "step." The Specification does not use the term "step" as used in the claim, but discusses that a Company B, i.e., second entity, can update content of access rights database so that the new (temporary) owner Carrier B can edit the data. Spec. i-f 70. The Specification further discusses that a current owner can determine the way a product should go through the supply chain up to a certain point or time and can then authorize other partners to make changes. Id. i-f 87. Thus, giving the term "step" the broadest reasonable interpretation in light of the Specification, we find reasonable, and supported by a preponderance of the evidence, the Examiner's finding that Kostov in view of Jorgenson teaches the limitation of the second entity adding a step by associating the data 7 Appeal2014-000656 Application 11/483,478 record with a third entity in disclosing a second entity adding (updating) data to provide rights to authorize a third, previously unassociated partner to access and edit the state model. See Ans. 6-7. Thus, we are not persuaded the Examiner erred in the rejection of claim 23, and we sustain the rejection. DECISION The Examiner's rejection of claims 1, 4--10, 13-15, and 18-22 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) is REVERSED. The Examiner's rejection of claim 23 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) is AFFIRMED. No time period of 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). AFFIRMED-IN-PART 8 Copy with citationCopy as parenthetical citation