Ex Parte PURI et alDownload PDFBoard of Patent Appeals and InterferencesJul 16, 200709235120 (B.P.A.I. Jul. 16, 2007) Copy Citation The opinion in support of the decision being entered today was not written 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 for publication and is not binding precedent of the Board UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE ____________________ BEFORE THE BOARD OF PATENT APPEALS AND INTERFERENCES ____________________ Ex parte ARVIND NATH PURI, VIJ DEEPAK and GALINA ATLAS PATIL ____________________ Appeal 2006-2678 Application 09/235,120 Technology Center 1700 ____________________ Decided: July 16, 2007 ____________________ Before: MURRIEL E. CRAWFORD, HUBERT C. LORIN and ANTON W. FETTING, Administrative Patent Judges. CRAWFORD, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL STATEMENT OF CASE Appellants appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134 (2002) from a final rejection of claims 1 to 7, 9 to 12 and 14 to 18, 21 to 24, 26 and 27. Claims 8, 13, 19, 20 and 25 have been cancelled. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b) (2002). Appeal 2006-2678 Application 09/235,120 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 THE INVENTION Appellants’ claimed invention consists of a computer implemented cost tracking and accounting method which includes the step of creating a unique cost source identifier data structure (Specification 11). Claim 1 under appeal reads as follows: 1. A computer implemented actual costing method for collecting and presenting an actual cost of manufacturing an item or performing a service, comprising the steps of: collecting actual costs of performing a job, manufacturing an item and/or purchasing an item, creating a unique cost source identifier data structure for each collected actual cost, each created cost source identifier data structure including a plurality of attribute fields; populating one of the plurality of attribute fields of the created cost source identifier data structure with the collected actual cost; storing the populated cost source identifier data structure in a memory of a computer; associating each unique cost source identifier data structure to a step carried out while manufacturing the item or while performing the service; and organizing and storing the cost source identifier data structures within the computer as a hierarchical structure that is modeled on: a structure of the item manufactured or a sequence of operations carried out while performing the service; 2 Appeal 2006-2678 Application 09/235,120 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 implementing a selected accounting costing method for actual cost collection and a selected accounting costing method for actual cost presentation by accessing and selectively traversing the hierarchical structure, the selected accounting costing method for actual cost collection being independent of the selected accounting costing method for cost presentation. THE REJECTION The Examiner rejected claims 1 to 7, 9 to 12, 14 to 18, and 21 to 27 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Conway in view of Bone and Fahey. The prior art relied upon by the Examiner in rejecting the claims on appeal is: Bone 4,918,602 Apr. 17, 1990 Conway 5,732,401 Mar. 24, 1998 Fahey 5,970,476 Oct. 19, 1999 The Examiner contends that Conway discloses a computer implemented actual costing method which includes the step of creating a unique cost source identifier data structure for each collected actual cost, each created cost source identifier data structure including a plurality of attribute fields. The Examiner relies on Bone for teaching utilizing costing methods that may be independent of each other and Fahey for teaching creating unique cost identifiers upon each occurrence of a transaction that affects the actual cost of carrying out an activity. 3 Appeal 2006-2678 Application 09/235,120 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 Appellants contend that Conway does not discloses creating a unique cost source identifier data structure, having a plurality of attribute fields, for each collected actual cost and associating each unique source cost identifier structure to a step carried out while manufacturing the item or performing the service. ISSUE Whether Appellants have shown that the Examiner erred in finding that Conway discloses the steps of creating a unique cost source identifier data structure, having a plurality of attribute fields for each collected actual cost and associating each unique cost source identifier data structure to a step carried out while manufacturing the item or performing the service. FINDINGS OF FACT Appellants’ claimed invention consists of a computer implemented actual costing method for collecting and presenting actual cost of manufacturing an item or performing a service. The method includes the step of creating a unique cost source identifier data structure for each collected actual cost (Specification p. 5). The specification defines cost source identifier data structure as a logical structure that includes the identified and collected actual cost 110 of manufacturing an item or items and/or the actual cost of performing a business activity or activities (Specification p. 11). The logical or data structure is depicted in Figure 1A. The data structure has several attribute fields including collected actual cost 110, date 120 and quantity 130. There are also additional fields 140 and 150 for other attributes. A new cost source 4 Appeal 2006-2678 Application 09/235,120 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 identifier data structure is assigned for each step in a multi-step job so that a job having multiple constituent steps or a manufactured item having a plurality of sub-parts or sub-assemblies may be assigned a corresponding plurality of cost source identifier data structures (Specification p. 12). As disclosed, the advantage of using the cost source identifier data structure of the Appellants’ invention is that calculation of actual cost is carried out in real time or near real time (Specification, p. 13). Conway discloses a system for tracking the cost of medical procedures by monitoring the movements of personnel and/or equipment and supplies (col. 1, ll. 4-6). The system utilizes transponder tags 20 associated with each person, each equipment and each supply (col. 2, ll. 1-2). A tag reader 28 communicates with each tag 20 as the tag 20 passes within proximity of the tag reader 28 (col. 2, ll. 42-43). The tag reader 28 then supplies tag information from the tag 20 to a computer which processes the information (col. 2, ll. 46-47). The system is depicted in Figure 2 which illustrates how the tag readers 28a, 28b, and 28c register the presence of the tags 20 on equipment (2b for example), and people (22b and 23b for example) in operating room 42. The information from the tag readers is used to determine the cost of the procedure provided to the patient by accumulating the labor cost of caregivers, rental cost of equipment used and cost of supplies consumed, combined with any rental expenses associated with the operating room 42 and any fixed equipment in the room (col. 6, ll. 7-11). Conway does not disclose creating a cost source identifier data structure and associating the cost source identifier data structure with a step carried out while manufacturing the item or performing the service. Conway 5 Appeal 2006-2678 Application 09/235,120 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 discloses that the tags are read and the cost associated with the tagged person or equipment is calculated by a computer. Fahey discloses a system for industrial data acquisition and product costing (col. 1, ll. 1-3). The system applies activity based costing to products in product families to produce a detailed analysis of activity based costs. Fahey discloses that all the costs associated with a particular operation or product family are organized together. For example, in regard to the Machine Shop, the costs of the production management operation are aggregated together as well as the costs of the drill and mill activity center, the turning center and the sheet metal center (col. 7, Table 1). Fahey does not discloses creating a unique cost source identifier data structure and associating a unique cost source identifier structure to each step carried out while manufacturing the item or while performing the service. Bone does not disclose creating a unique cost source identifier data structure for each collected actual cost. PRINCIPLES OF LAW We initially note that the test for obviousness is what the combined teachings of the references would have suggested to one of ordinary skill in the art. See In re Kahn, 441 F.3d 977, 987-988, 78 USPQ2d 1329, 1336 (Fed. Cir. 2006); In re Young, 927 F.2d 588, 591, 18 USPQ2d 1089, 1091 (Fed. Cir. 1991) and In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 425, 208 USPQ 871, 881 (CCPA 1981). 6 Appeal 2006-2678 Application 09/235,120 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 DISCUSSION We agree with the Appellants that Conway does not teach or suggest creating a unique source cost identifier data structure for each collected actual cost and associating a unique source cost identifier data structure for each step carried out while manufacturing the item or while performing the service. In addition, we have found that neither Bone nor Fahey cure this deficiency of Conway. Therefore, we will not sustain the Examiner’s rejection of claims 1 to 7, 9 to 12 and 14 to 27 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) . DECISION The decision of the Examiner is reversed. 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 REVERSED vsh YOUNG LAW FIRM, P.C. 4370 ALPINE RD. STE. 106 PORTOLA VALLEY CA 94028 7 Copy with citationCopy as parenthetical citation