11322325 (B.P.A.I. Sep. 8, 2010)

Ex Parte Oppert et al

Board of Patent Appeals and InterferencesSep 8, 2010

11322325 (B.P.A.I. Sep. 8, 2010)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE ____________ BEFORE THE BOARD OF PATENT APPEALS AND INTERFERENCES ____________ Ex parte TILL OPPERT, PAOLA SALA, GEORG PODHAJSKY, JOACHIM WELTE, MARKUS KLEIN, WOLFGANG BARHEINE, MATTHIAS HEINRICHS,TANJA SOEHNGEN, PASCAL HOCHWARTH and MICHAEL SYLVESTER ____________ Appeal 2009-014922 Application 11/322,325 Technology Center 3600 ____________ Before HUBERT C. LORIN, ANTON W. FETTING, and BIBHU R. MOHANTY, Administrative Patent Judges. MOHANTY, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL1 1 The two-month time period for filing an appeal or commencing a civil action, as recited in 37 C.F.R. § 1.304, or for filing a request for rehearing, as recited in 37 C.F.R. § 41.52, begins to run from the “MAIL DATE” (paper delivery mode) or the “NOTIFICATION DATE” (electronic delivery mode) shown on the PTOL-90A cover letter attached to this decision. Appeal 2009-014922 Application 11/322,325 2 STATEMENT OF THE CASE The Appellants seek our review under 35 U.S.C. § 134 (2002) of the final rejection of claims 1-5, 8-14, and 16-20 which are all the claims pending in the application. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b) (2002). SUMMARY OF THE DECISION We AFFIRM. THE INVENTION The Appellants’ claimed invention is directed a reconciliation method and apparatus (Spec. Title). Claim 1, reproduced below, is representative of the subject matter of appeal. 1. A method comprising: selecting a set of transaction records from an accounting function of a business management system; selecting a set of transaction records from a logical deployment unit of the business management system, wherein the logical deployment unit processes business transactions, keeps primary records of such business transactions, and sends messages regarding such business transactions to the accounting function; and checking the set of transaction records from the accounting function against the set of transaction records from the logical deployment unit, wherein the accounting function is separate from the logical deployment unit and communicates via messages, allowing each to handle transactions differently. Appeal 2009-014922 Application 11/322,325 3 THE REJECTIONS The Examiner relies upon the following as evidence in support of the rejections: Rosen US 6,081,790 Jun. 27, 2000 Licardi US 2007/0192218 A1 Aug. 16, 2007 The following rejections are before us for review2: 1. Claims 1-5, 8, 10-14, 16, and 18-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Rosen. 2. Claims 9 and 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Rosen and Licardi THE ISSUES At issue is whether the Appellants have shown that the Examiner erred in making the aforementioned rejections. This issue turns on whether the cited prior art references of Rosen and Licardi disclose the cited claim limitations for which the Appellants have argued. FINDINGS OF FACT We find the following enumerated findings of fact (FF) are supported at least by a preponderance of the evidence:3 2 We note the rejection made under 35 U.S.C. § 112, second paragraph, has been withdrawn by the Examiner (Ans. 2). 3 See Ethicon, Inc. v. Quigg, 849 F.2d 1422, 1427 (Fed. Cir. 1988) (explaining the general evidentiary standard for proceedings before the Patent Office). Appeal 2009-014922 Application 11/322,325 4 FF1. Rosen has disclosed a system for secure presentment and payment over open networks. (Title). FF2. Rosen in Fig. 1 shows both a merchant trusted agent 4 and a customer trusted agent 2. FF3. Rosen at Col. 10:27-44 discloses that an account receivable system 193 and an accounts payable system 189 are present in the system. Trusted agent A presents invoices and/or past due notices and trusted agent B receives the invoices or past due notices. FF4. Rosen at Col. 13:32-45 discloses that if invoices and/or past due notices have been paid then the remittance advices and commercial payment tickets are forwarded to trusted agent A via trusted agent B. FF5. Licardi has disclosed a system for approval and allocation of costs in electronic procurement (Title). FF6. Licardi discloses that if invoice load module 108 determines that the invoice is missing data or contains invalid data the supplier 101 may be notified to correct the error [0046]. ANALYSIS Claims 1-5, 8, 10-14, 16, and 18-20 The Appellants argue that the rejection of claim 1 is improper because: 1) the claims recite that the accounting system and logical deployment unit are part of the same business management system which is not shown in Rosen, 2) Rosen fails to shown an account system or logical deployment unit, and 3) Rosen fails to disclose an accounting system that receives messages from a separate logical deployment unit (Br. 12-13, Reply Br. 2). Appeal 2009-014922 Application 11/322,325 5 In contrast the Examiner has determined that rejection of record is proper (Ans. 7-9). Turning to the Appellants first argument, the Appellants argue that the claim requires that the accounting system and logical deployment unit are part of the same business management system which is not shown in Rosen (Br. 12). The Appellants argue that Figure 1 of Rosen which shows a “customer trusted agent 2 is clearly not part of any type of business management system, since it is a customer entity, not a business entity” (Br. 12). We note initially that the claim does not include any specific language which excludes any part of a ‘customer system’ from being part of the business management system. Regardless, Fig. 1 shows both a merchant trusted agent 4 and a customer trusted agent 2 (FF2) and since the respective agents are used, it does not serve as the customer themselves, but rather some agent that is encompassed in a business management system of some kind. Thus, both the merchant trusted agent 4 and customer trusted agent 2 maybe considered part of Rosen’s business management system. Turning to the Appellants second argument, the Appellants argue that Rosen fails to disclose an “account function” or a “logical deployment unit” of the business management system as claimed (Br. 12). The Examiner has determined that such features are disclosed at Fig. 1, Col. 10:27-44, and Col. 13:32-45 (Ans. 4). Rosen has disclosed that trusted agent A presents invoices and/or past due notices (acting as a logical deployment unit with a set of transaction records) and trusted agent B receives the invoices or past due notices (providing an accounting function of some kind) (FF3, FF4) meeting the cited claim limitation. Note also that both the trusted agent A Appeal 2009-014922 Application 11/322,325 6 and trusted agent B are also agents which may be considered part of a business management system as claimed. Turning to the Appellants third argument, the Appellants argue that Rosen fails to disclose an accounting system that receives messages representative of transactions performed by a logical deployment unit. Again, Rosen has disclosed that trusted agent A presents invoices and/or past due notices (acting as a logical deployment unit with a set of transaction records) and trusted agent B receives the invoices or past due notices (FF3, FF4) and serves as an accounting system of some kind meeting the cited claim limitation. For these reasons the rejection of claim 1, and claims 2-5, 8, 10-14, 16, and 18-20 which have not been separately argued, is sustained. Claims 9 and 17 The Appellants argue that rejection of claims 9 and 17 is improper because the claims recite “determining that a transaction record is missing …and sending a transaction record corresponding to the missing transaction record” (Br. 14). The Appellants argue that Licardi does not show this cited claim limitation because a missing transaction record and an invoice are not the same (Br. 14). In contrast the Examiner has determined that Licardi discloses the cited claim limitation at [0046] (Ans.7). We agree with the Examiner. We note initially that the cited claim limitation does not exclude “a transaction record” from being an invoice that is missing data. As Licardi has disclosed that if an invoice is missing data or contains invalid data the supplier 101 may be notified to correct the error Appeal 2009-014922 Application 11/322,325 7 (FF6) the cited claim limitation has been shown. For these reasons, the rejection of claims 9 and 17 is sustained. CONCLUSIONS OF LAW We conclude that Appellants have not shown that the Examiner erred in rejecting claims 1-5, 8, 10-14, 16, and 18-20 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Rosen. We conclude that Appellants have not shown that the Examiner erred in rejecting claims 9 and 17 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Rosen and Licardi DECISION The Examiner’s rejection of claims 1-5, 8-14, and 16-20 is sustained. AFFIRMED MP SCHWEGMAN, LUNDBERG & WOESSNER, P.A. P.O. BOX 2938 MINNEAPOLIS MN 55402