Ex Parte Soehngen et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Feb 26, 2016

11256106 (P.T.A.B. Feb. 26, 2016)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE
111256,106 10/24/2005
131475 7590 02/26/2016
Dilworth IP - SAP
2 Corporate Drive, Suite 206
Trumbull, CT 06611
FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
Tanja Soehngen
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.
247-034US 6497
EXAMINER
LEVINE, ADAM L
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
3625
MAILDATE DELIVERY MODE
02/26/2016 PAPER
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.
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte TANJA SOEHNGEN, FRANK MILPETZ,
PATRICK KARCHER, and PAOLA SALA
Appeal2013-008135
Application 11/256, 106
Technology Center 3600
Before HUBERT C. LORIN, BIBHU R. MOHANTY, and
BRADLEY B. BAY AT, Administrative Patent Judges.
MOHANTY, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
The Appellants seek our review under 35 U.S.C. § 134 of the final
rejection of claims 1-24 which are all the claims pending in the application.
We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
SUMMARY OF THE DECISION
We AFFIRM.
Appeal2013-008135
Application 11/256, 106
THE INVENTION
The Appellants' claimed invention is directed to the management of
business partners in a procurement management system (Spec. i-f 1 ). Claim
1, reproduced below with numbering in brackets added, is representative of
the subject matter on appeal.
1. A computer-implemented method for managing business
partners in a procurement management system, the method
compnsmg:
[ 1] allowing a user to manage a plurality of invoicing
parties associated with a business partner in a first interface
displayed on a computer system, wherein the first interface
comprises a menu item for allowing the user to search for at
least one invoicing party to manage;
[2] determining, by a processor, a default invoicing party
from the plurality of invoicing parties associated with the
business partner;
[3] generating, by the processor, a second interface that
displays an invoice associated with the business partner on the
computer system;
[ 4] automatically providing, by the processor, the default
invoicing party as a responsible invoicing party in the displayed
invoice; and
[5] allowing the user to replace the provided default
invoicing party in the second interface with another one of the
plurality of invoicing parties associated with the business
partner.
THE REJECTION
The following rejection is before us for review:
Claims 1-24 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable
over Cramon (US 2002/0103660 Al, pub. Aug. 1, 2002) and Gilberto (US
2003/0158791 Al, pub. Aug. 21, 2003).
2
Appeal2013-008135
Application 11/256, 106
FINDINGS OF FACT
We have determined that the findings of fact in the Analysis section
below are supported at least by a preponderance of the evidence. 1
ANALYSIS
Claims 1, 3, 5--8, 10, 12-15, 17, and 19-24
The Appellants argue that the rejection of claim 1 is improper because
the references do not disclose the elements of claim limitations [3] and [ 4]
(Appeal Br. 12-16, Reply Br. 2---6). In contrast, the Examiner has
determined that the rejection is proper (Ans. 2-11; see also Final Act. 3---6).
We agree with the Examiner. With regard to claim limitation [3],
Appellants argue that "Gilberto contains no disclosure regarding whether its
generated invoice is displayed, let alone whether 'a second interface that
displays an invoice' is generated" (Appeal Br. 14). Figure 42 of Gilberto
shows a portion of an order and payment visibility process including element
122 "Trigger electronic invoice to buyer" and element 130 "Review/Audit
invoice" (see also Gilberto, i-fi-128, 99-116). Gilberto discloses that
"[p ]referably, the invoice is generated automatically and submitted to the
buyer (keystone icon 126) in an electronic format" (Gilberto, i-f 114).
Further, Figure 3 of Gilberto depicts sending an invoice to a buyer via email,
mail, or fax. Thus, the cited combination and Gilberto's disclosure of
generating an electronic invoice that can be sent via email meets claim
limitation [3].
1 See Ethicon, Inc. v. Quigg, 849 F.2d 1422, 1427 (Fed. Cir. 1988)
(explaining the general evidentiary standard for proceedings before the
Patent Office).
3
Appeal2013-008135
Application 11/256, 106
With regard to claim limitation [4], Appellants argue that Gilberto
does not disclose "automatically providing, by the processor, the default
invoicing party as a responsible invoicing party" because "Gilberto is silent
regarding what specific information is included in its generated invoice"
(Appeal Br. 15). However, Gilberto discloses that the "electronic invoice is
created using the purchase order information" (Gilberto, i-f 114), and that the
purchase order information includes the supplier (id. i-fi-1 63---65; Fig. 14 ).
Thus, the cited combination and Gilberto disclose that the system provides
electronic invoice purchase order information and provides the supplier as
the "invoicing party" meeting the cited claim limitation.
For these reasons, the rejection of claim 1 is sustained. The
Appellants have provided the same arguments for independent claims 5, 8,
12, 15, and 19 and dependent claims 3, 6, 7, 10, 13, 14, 17, and 20-24, and
the rejection of these claims is sustained for the same reasons given above.
Dependent claims 2, 4, 9, 11, 16 and 18
The Appellants argue that the Examiner's rejection of claims 2, 9, and
16 is improper because Cramon does not disclose "allowing the user to
select one of the plurality of invoicing parties as a user-selected default
invoicing party in the first interface" (Appeal Br. 16-17, Reply Br. 6-8). In
contrast, the Examiner has determined that the rejection is proper (Ans. 3,
11-12; see also Final Act. 7).
We agree with the Examiner. Paragraph 444 of Cramon teaches that
when stocking a new item, the purchasing department identifies the supplier,
if not given, and Figure 3 shows that the supplier sends the invoice. Thus,
Cramon discloses that a user selects an invoicing party for a purchase order.
4
Appeal2013-008135
Application 11/256, 106
Gilberto teaches that the purchase order information is used to automatically
generate an electronic invoice, as discussed above. Thus, the combined
teachings of Cramon and Gilberto would result in the user-selected invoicing
party being the default invoicing party in the automatically-generated
mv01ce.
For these reasons, the rejection of claims 2, 9, and 16 is sustained.
The Appellants have provided the same arguments for dependent claims 4,
11, and 18, and the rejection of these claims is sustained for the same
reasons given above.
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
We conclude that the Appellants have not shown that the Examiner
erred in rejecting the claims as listed in the Rejection section above.
DECISION
The Examiner's rejection of claims 1-24 is sustained.
No time period for 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) (2015).
AFFIRMED
5