Ex Parte SitarskiDownload PDFPatent Trial and Appeal BoardFeb 10, 201511975820 (P.T.A.B. Feb. 10, 2015) Copy Citation UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE ____________________ BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD ____________________ Ex parte EDWARD M. SITARSKI ____________________ Appeal 2012-0074121 Application 11/975,8202 Technology Center 3600 ____________________ Before HUBERT C. LORIN, NINA L. MEDLOCK, and BRADLEY B. BAYAT, Administrative Patent Judges. MEDLOCK, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL STATEMENT OF THE CASE Appellant appeals under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Examiner’s final rejection of claims 1–19 and 21–24. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). We REVERSE. 1 Our decision references Appellant’s Appeal Brief (“App. Br.,” filed December 19, 2011) and Reply Brief (“Reply Br.,” filed March 30, 2012), and the Examiner’s Answer (“Ans.,” mailed February 1, 2012). 2 Appellant identifies Oracle International Corporation as the real party in interest (App. Br. 2). Appeal 2012-007412 Application 11/975,820 2 CLAIMED INVENTION Appellant’s claimed invention relates to “planning responses to unplanned events associated with, for example, an EPS [i.e., an ‘Enterprise Planning System’]” (Spec. ¶ 20). Claim 1, reproduced below, is illustrative of the subject matter on appeal: 1. A non-transitory computer-readable medium storing computer executable instructions that when executed by a computer cause the computer to perform a method, the method, comprising: accessing an enterprise model for supply chain planning associated with an enterprise planning system (EPS), where the model includes data describing one or more supply chain entities having one or more attributes; producing an operating plan that solves the model with respect to a business objective and a set of solution criteria; accessing a set of event data that describes an unplanned event to be applied to the model, where the unplanned event is a future event; applying the unplanned event to the model to produce an updated model that is modified by the unplanned event beginning at an effective time of the unplanned event in the future; locking a portion of the operating plan to produce a partially invariant operating plan that includes an unmodifiable segment prior to the effective time of the unplanned event and a modifiable segment subsequent to the effective time of the unplanned event; and producing a response operating plan that solves the updated model with respect to the business objective and the solution criteria in light of the partially invariant operating plan, the updated model, and the unplanned event, where the response operating plan includes the unmodifiable segment and a solution segment. Appeal 2012-007412 Application 11/975,820 3 REJECTIONS Claim 1 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over William Atkinson, Supply Chain Management: New Opportunities for Risk Managers, Risk Management, June 1, 2006 (hereinafter “Atkinson”) and McKenney (US 2003/0125998 A1, pub. July 3, 2003). Claims 1–19 and 21–24 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Golightly (US 2003/0046130 A1, pub. Mar. 6, 2003) and McKenney. ANALYSIS Independent claim 1 as unpatentable over Atkinson and McKenney We are persuaded by Appellant’s argument that the Examiner erred in rejecting independent claim 1 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) because McKenney, on which the Examiner relies, does not disclose or suggest “applying the unplanned event [where the unplanned event is a future event] to the model to produce an updated model that is modified by the unplanned event beginning at an effective time of the unplanned event in the future,” as recited in claim 1 (App. Br. 11–17). The Examiner cites paragraphs 26, 65–67, 72–80, and 84 of McKenney as disclosing the argued feature (Ans. 6 and 27–28). However, we agree with Appellant that none of the cited portions of McKenney discloses or suggests applying a future event to a model to produce an updated model that is modified beginning at an effective time in the future. Instead, McKenney discloses a response management system for enhancing emergency responders’ situational awareness of emergency events that are presently occurring (see, e.g., App. Br. 15–16). McKenney, thus, describes, Appeal 2012-007412 Application 11/975,820 4 in paragraphs 65–67, that a response options generator (“ROG”) interface “provides automated response and resource estimates to decision-makers in command posts and on-site in developing a response to significant, unplanned events.” McKenney states in paragraph 70 that the ROG interface is provided for use during the response to a particular contingency, and further describes, in paragraphs 72–79, that in order to determine the required resources for a particular contingency, the ROG interface first determines the scope of the contingency, e.g., a biological attack, that is “underway” (see id. ¶ 73). In the Response to Argument section of the Answer, the Examiner directs our attention to paragraphs 80 and 84 of McKenney, which describe that “[o]nce the contingency is complete,” the ROG interface archives the operation for future review and use. The Examiner asserts that “[t]his shows that after a contingency is complete, which is applying unplanned events, the contingency is used in the future” (Ans. 27). However, we agree with Appellant that these paragraphs describe nothing more than an archiving process for keeping a historical record of an event; they do not disclose or suggest applying an unplanned event (that is a future event) to a model, as called for in claim 1 (see Reply Br. 2–3). In view of the foregoing, we do not sustain the Examiner’s rejection of claim 1 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Atkinson and McKenney. Independent claim 1 as unpatentable over Golightly and McKenney The Examiner rejects claim 1, in the alternative, as obvious over Golightly and McKenney, and, in the Final Office Action, applies reasoning similar to that described above. Thus, in the Final Office Action, the Appeal 2012-007412 Application 11/975,820 5 Examiner cites paragraph 108 of Golightly as disclosing “applying the unplanned event to the model to produce an updated model” (see Final Act. 10), and relies on McKenney as disclosing that the unplanned event is a future event (see id. at 11) (observing that Golightly does not specifically disclose that the unplanned event is a future event, and citing paragraph 73 of McKenney to cure the deficiency). In the Response to Argument section of the Answer, however, the Examiner notes that paragraph 131 of Golightly “shows simulation for predictive analysis and scenario evaluation and optimization” (Ans. 30). And the Examiner concludes, “[t]herefore, Golightly can also be interpreted as applying unplanned events for models in the future (id.). For the reasons set forth above, we agree with Appellant that McKenney does not disclose or suggest an unplanned event that is a future event. We also find no such disclosure or suggestion in the cited paragraphs of Golightly. Golightly discloses “a real-time enterprise optimization (REO) system” (see, e.g., Golightly ¶ 39), and describes in paragraphs 106–108 that the system updates an enterprise model with current events as they occur or with recent events that have occurred in the past. Contrary to the Examiner’s assertions, we find nothing in paragraph 131 of Golightly to suggest that the embodiment of the REO system described in that paragraph is using data for events other than those that occur in real-time (see Reply Br. 9). In view of the foregoing, we do not sustain the Examiner’s rejection of claim 1 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Golightly and McKenney. Appeal 2012-007412 Application 11/975,820 6 Dependent claims 2–13 Each of claims 2–13 ultimately depends from claim 1. Therefore, we do not sustain the Examiner’s rejection of claims 2–13 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) for the same reasons set forth above with respect to claim 1. Cf. In re Fritch, 972 F.2d 1260, 1266 (Fed. Cir. 1992) (“dependent claims are nonobvious if the independent claims from which they depend are nonobvious”). Independent claims 14 and 21 and dependent claims 15–19 and 22–24 Independent claims 14 and 21 include language substantially similar to the language of claim 1. Therefore, we do not sustain the Examiner’s rejection under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) of independent claims 14 and 21, and claims 15–19 and 22–24, which depend therefrom, for the same reasons set forth above with respect to claim 1. DECISION The Examiner’s rejections of claims 1–19 and 21–24 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) are reversed. REVERSED Ssc Copy with citationCopy as parenthetical citation