Ex Parte Nochta

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

May 6, 2016

11483478 (P.T.A.B. May. 6, 2016)

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