Ex Parte Soumokil et alDownload PDFPatent Trial and Appeal BoardJun 10, 201310770423 (P.T.A.B. Jun. 10, 2013) Copy Citation UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE 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 APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE FIRST NAMED INVENTOR ATTORNEY DOCKET NO. CONFIRMATION NO. 10/770,423 02/04/2004 Mike Soumokil 07781.0140-00 1939 60668 7590 06/11/2013 SAP / FINNEGAN, HENDERSON LLP 901 NEW YORK AVENUE, NW WASHINGTON, DC 20001-4413 EXAMINER LIN, SHEW FEN ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 2166 MAIL DATE DELIVERY MODE 06/11/2013 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 MIKE SOUMOKIL and GUIDO RIETVELD ________________ Appeal 2010-009693 Application 10/770,423 Technology Center 2100 ________________ Before JOSEPH F. RUGGIERO, JEAN R. HOMERE, and JOHN G. NEW, Administrative Patent Judges. NEW, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL Appeal 2010-009693 Application 10/770,423 2 SUMMARY Appellants file this appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Examiner’s Final Rejection of claims 1, 6, 8, 10, 12-14, 16, 18-20, 22, 24, 25, 28, and 29 as unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being obvious over the combination of Ludwig et al. (US 2003/0004874 A1, January 2, 2003) (“Ludwig”) and Suzuki et al. (US 2002/0032692 A1, March 14, 2002) (“Suzuki”). 1 We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). We affirm. NATURE OF THE CLAIMED INVENTION Appellants’ invention is directed to an electronic data record containing data of an invoice, the record including a plurality of data fields, comprising a data field for characterization of the state of the processing of the invoice. Abstract. GROUPING OF CLAIMS Because Appellants argue that the Examiner erred for substantially the same reasons with respect to all of the claims, we select claim 1 as representative. App. Br. 19. Claim 1 recites: 1. A computer readable storage medium for storing an electronic data record of an invoice, the electronic data record comprising: 1 Claims 2-5, 7, 9, 11, 15, 17, 21, 23, 26, and 27 are canceled. Appeal 2010-009693 Application 10/770,423 3 a state data field corresponding to the invoice, the state data field including: an identification of a current state of a processing of the invoice, the current state being assigned by a user through a dialogue displayed on a display device; a first link to a description table comprising identifications of a plurality of possible states of the invoice during the processing of the invoice and corresponding descriptions of the plurality of possible states; a second link to an instruction table comprising the identifications of the plurality of possible states and corresponding instructions automatically executed by a computer, the instructions comprising a workflow automatically initiated by the computer; a third link to an event table comprising the identifications of the plurality of possible states and corresponding events which can occur during the processing of the invoice; and a fourth link to a proposal table comprising the identifications of the plurality of possible states and corresponding proposed actions for changing the corresponding states; and Appeal 2010-009693 Application 10/770,423 4 a comment data field corresponding to the invoice, the comment data field comprising comments entered by the user through the dialogue. App. Br. 21-22. ISSUES AND ANALYSES We address Appellants’ arguments seriatim, as presented in Appellants’ Brief. Issue 1 Appellants argue that the Examiner erred in finding that the combination of Ludwig and Suzuki teaches or suggests the limitation of claim 1 reciting “an instruction table comprising the identifications of the plurality of possible states and corresponding instructions automatically executed by a computer.” App. Br. 15. We therefore address the issue of whether the Examiner so erred. Analysis Appellants dispute the Examiner’s finding that Suzuki teaches an “instruction table.” App. Br. 15 (citing Final Office Action 6). According to Appellants, Suzuki discloses “a state definition table 210 for storing definitions of possible states …; [and] a transition definition table 211 for storing definitions of possible transitions between states.” Id. (quoting Suzuki, ¶ [0065]. Appellants contend that neither these tables, nor any other tables taught or suggested by Suzuki, stores instructions automatically executed by a computer in correspondence with the stored possible states. App. Br. 15. Appeal 2010-009693 Application 10/770,423 5 The Examiner responds that Suzuki teaches (1) a process definition table 142, (2) a stores table 210, which contains a plurality of possible states as well as definitions of these possible states, and (3) a transition definition table 211, which contains definitions of possible transition between the states. Ans. 17 (citing Suzuki, ¶¶ [0019-0020], [0064-0065], [0068], [0073], [0145], [0150], and Fig. 2). The Examiner finds that the workflow data 143 and process definition data 142 determine the processing mode for a state transition request by a process method determination program 200. Ans. 18. The process method determination program 200 assigns a process to the state transition request synchronous process program 201 or the state transition request asynchronous process program 202, in accordance with the contents of the transition definition table 211. Id. The Examiner consequently interprets the three process programs 201, 202, and 203 as being instructions automatically executed by a computer in accordance with the state transition request. Ans. 18. We are persuaded by the Examiner’s reasoning. Suzuki explicitly teaches: [T]he state transition request synchronous process program 201 which calls the state transition process program 203 to implement the synchronous processing of a state transition request; the state transition request asynchronous process program 202 which stores a state transition request in the state transition request table 215, fetches the state transition request from the state transition request table 215 at a timing at which it is called by a state transition request regular interval start program 205, and calls the state transition process program 203 to implement the asynchronous processing of the state transition request; Appeal 2010-009693 Application 10/770,423 6 Suzuki, ¶ [0068] (emphases added); Ans. 17. Suzuki thus teaches or suggests a state transition request table, which stores state transition requests in a state transition request table (an instruction table comprising the identifications of the plurality of possible states) and calls the process program to implement processing of the state transition request (corresponding instructions automatically executed by a computer, the instructions comprising a workflow). We therefore conclude that the Examiner did not err in finding that the combination of Ludwig and Suzuki teaches or suggests the limitation of claim 1 reciting “an instruction table comprising the identifications of the plurality of possible states and corresponding instructions automatically executed by a computer.” Issue 2 Appellants argue that the Examiner erred in finding that the combination of Ludwig and Suzuki teaches or suggests the limitation of claim 1 reciting: “an event table comprising the identification of the plurality of possible states and corresponding events which can occur during the processing of the invoice.” App. Br. 15. We therefore address the issue of whether the Examiner so erred. Analysis Appellants argue that, although Ludwig teaches or suggests that certain invoice-related events can occur, Ludwig fails to teach or suggest storing such events in an events table in correspondence with a plurality of possible states of the invoice. App. Br. 16. Appellants therefore contend that Ludwig fails to teach or suggest “an event table comprising the Appeal 2010-009693 Application 10/770,423 7 identifications of the plurality of possible states and corresponding events which can occur during the processing of the invoice.” Id. Likewise, Appellants argue, Suzuki fails to teach or suggest any table that stores “the identifications of the plurality of possible states,” and the events in correspondence with each other. App. Br. 16. The Examiner responds that Ludwig teaches the disputed limitation because the system may link the status field to the invoice history page, at which the system may display a full status history for the selected invoice. Ans. 15. The Examiner finds that, by default, the system can display columns such as: payer name, invoice number, due date, status, net amount due, amount to pay, P.O. number, P.O. requisition number, and store number. Id. (citing Ludwig, ¶¶ [0092], [0080]). The Examiner also finds that Ludwig teaches the system may permit biller system users to be associated with specific system events, such as invoices loaded successfully, invoices loaded unsuccessfully, invoice adjusted, payment authorized, payment canceled, payment completed, and payment notification. Ans. 16 (citing Ludwig, ¶ [0104]). The Examiner interprets these latter events as corresponding to the events recited in the disputed limitation because they take place, or occur, based on the current state of the invoice. Ans. 16. Appellants reply that if Examiner finds that the full status history in the invoice history page of Ludwig corresponds to the claimed “events which can occur during the processing of the invoice,” then Ludwig fails to teach or suggest that the full status history is stored in correspondence with “identifications of the plurality of possible states” in the invoice history page. Reply Br. 4. Alternatively, argue Appellants, if the Examiner finds Appeal 2010-009693 Application 10/770,423 8 that the full status history in the invoice history page of Ludwig corresponds to the claimed “identifications of the plurality of possible states,” then Ludwig fails to teach or suggest that the full status history is stored in correspondence with “events which can occur during the processing of the invoice” in the invoice history page. Id. We are not persuaded by Appellants’ arguments. Ludwig explicitly teaches that: The system may link the invoice number field to the invoice detail page. The system may link the status field to the invoice history page, at which the system may display a full status history for the selected invoice. By default, the system may display the following exemplary columns: payer name, invoice number, due date, status, net amount due, amount to pay, P.O. number, P.O. requisition number, store number, and select. Ludwig, ¶ [0092]; Ans. 15. Therefore, the status field (i.e., the “state” field of claim 1) links to a table which displays the full status history for the invoice at issue (i.e., “an event table comprising the identification of the plurality of possible states and corresponding events which can occur during the processing of the invoice.”). Id. We therefore find that the Examiner did not err in finding that the cited prior art references teach or suggest the disputed limitation of claim 1. Issue 3 Appellants argue that the Examiner erred in finding that the combination of Ludwig and Suzuki teaches or suggests the limitations of claim 1 reciting: [A] description table comprising identifications of a plurality of possible states of the invoice[,] … an instructions table Appeal 2010-009693 Application 10/770,423 9 comprising the identifications of the plurality of possible states of the invoice[,] … an event table comprising the identifications of the plurality of possible states of the invoice[,]… and … a proposal table comprising the identifications of the plurality of possible states of the invoice. App. Br. 17. We therefore address the issue of whether the Examiner so erred. Analysis Appellants argue that the language of the limitations requires that each of the four tables “compris[es] the identifications of the plurality of possible states.” App. Br. 17. Appellants contend that, although Ludwig teaches the statuses of invoices including “paid invoices, adjusted invoices, unpaid invoices, [and] paid through another source,” Ludwig nevertheless fails to teach or suggest four tables each storing all of the possible statuses. Id. (citing Ludwig, ¶ [0080]) (emphasis added). Appellants also argue that although Suzuki discloses that “[t]he user of the workflow management system uses a process definition tool 141 to define possible states taken by process instances” (quoting Suzuki, ¶ [0060]) and, further, that although Suzuki further discloses various tables, none of the tables in Suzuki stores the possible states. App. Br. 17 (citing Suzuki, Figs. 2, 4). Consequently, argue Appellants, the combined prior art references fail to teach or suggest the disputed limitations of claim 1. App. Br. 17. Appeal 2010-009693 Application 10/770,423 10 The Examiner responds that Ludwig teaches showing the possible states of an invoice, e.g., having payment pending, paid, closed, etc., which are stored in the tables of database 36. Ans. 19 (citing Ludwig, ¶ [0127]). The Examiner finds, however, that Ludwig does not explicitly disclose different tables storing possible states. Ans. 19. The Examiner finds further that Suzuki teaches “different tables storing possible states” including a state definition table 210, transition definition table 211, and process instance state table 214. Ans. 20 (citing Suzuki, Fig. 2; ¶¶ [0064]-[0065]). The Examiner finds that the state definition table 210 includes definition of possible states; the transition definition table 211 includes definition of possible transition between states; and the process instance table 214 includes states of process instance. Therefore, finds the Examiner, all of these tables include a plurality of the possible states. Ans. 20. We find the Examiner’s reasoning persuasive. We agree with the Examiner that Ludwig teaches a plurality of tables teaching possible states. In addition to the teachings of Suzuki quoted by the Examiner supra, Suzuki also teaches “a participant determining rule definition table 212 for storing definitions of participant determining rules for use in determining a participant in each state; and a participant definition table 213 for storing definitions of participants.” Suzuki, ¶ [0065]. Combining these teachings of Suzuki with those quoted above, we find that Suzuki teaches a plurality of tables that contain possible states relating to the state field recited in claim 1. We consequently find that the Examiner did not err in finding that the combined prior art references teach or suggest the disputed limitations of claim 1. Appeal 2010-009693 Application 10/770,423 11 Issue 4 Appellants argue that the Examiner erred in finding that the combined prior art references teach or suggest the limitations of claim 1 reciting “a state data field … including … an identification of a current state[,] … a first link to a description table[,] … a second link to an instructions table[,] … a third link to an event table[,] … and a fourth link to a proposal table.” App. Br. 18. We therefore address the issue of whether the Examiner so erred. Analysis Specifically, Appellants argue that, in addition to the identification of the current state, the prior art references do not teach or suggest four links to the four tables recited in claim 1, wherein each comprises the identifications of the plurality of possible states. App. Br. 18. Appellants contend that Ludwig discloses only a single link to a history page, but does not teach or suggest a link to table, let alone four tables. Id. Appellants also argue that neither Ludwig nor Suzuki teaches or suggests any table comprising possible states. Id. The Examiner responds that Ludwig teaches that a system may link the status field to the invoice history page, in which the system may display a full status history for the selected invoice. Ans. 20 (citing Ludwig, ¶¶ [0092], [0130]). Furthermore, the Examiner finds that the link to the invoice history page corresponds to the table of events, and that the link to the invoice detail page corresponds to the proposal table recited in claim 1 because Ludwig teaches that the detail page includes the current state of the invoices (presented, viewed or adjusted) and actions that may be Appeal 2010-009693 Application 10/770,423 12 performed on the invoice (e.g., approve invoice, verify confirm, etc.). Ans. 20 (citing Ludwig, ¶ [0130]). The Examiner also finds that Suzuki's figure 2 teaches that the current state is linked or referenced to tables 210, 211 and 213, which are being used for the state transitioning process by use of a workflow management program. Ans. 20. We are persuaded by the Examiner’s reasoning. We have explained supra why we adopt the Examiner’s reasoning with respect to Suzuki’s teaching that the tables 210, 211, and 213 contain possible states. We also adopt the Examiner’s reasoning with respect to the teachings of Ludwig with respect to the correspondence of the invoice history page and the invoice detail page to claim 1’s events table and proposal table, respectively. 2 Moreover, Ludwig and Suzuki teach or suggest that these are linked to the state (e.g., status data) field. See Ludwig, ¶ [0130]; Suzuki Fig. 2, ¶¶ [0019. [0020]. We therefore conclude that the Examiner did not err in finding that the cited prior art references teach or suggest the disputed limitations of claim 1. DECISION The Examiner’s rejection of claims 1, 6, 8, 10, 12-14, 16, 18-20, 22, 24, 25, 28, and 29 as unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. 103(a) is affirmed. 2 We note in passing that Ludwig teaches that these pages may be relational database tables. See, e.g., Ludwig, ¶ [0045]. Appeal 2010-009693 Application 10/770,423 13 TIME PERIOD FOR RESPONSE No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a) (1)(iv). AFFIRMED ELD Copy with citationCopy as parenthetical citation