Ex Parte Thoren

Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences

May 24, 2012

10843304 (B.P.A.I. May. 24, 2012)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARKOFFICE
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.
10/843,304 05/12/2004 Werner Thoren THOR3001/FJD 4977
23364 7590 05/24/2012
BACON & THOMAS, PLLC
625 SLATERS LANE
FOURTH FLOOR
ALEXANDRIA, VA 22314-1176
EXAMINER
ADE, OGER GARCIA
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
3687
MAIL DATE DELIVERY MODE
05/24/2012 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 BOARD OF PATENT APPEALS
AND INTERFERENCES
____________________

Ex parte WERNER THOREN1
____________________

Appeal 2011-002502
Application 10/843,304
Technology Center 3600
____________________
Before JOSEPH A. FISCHETTI, KEVIN F. TURNER, and
MERDETH C. PETRAVICK, Administrative Patent Judges.

TURNER, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL

1 Endress + Hauser Process Solutions, AG is the real party in interest. See
Assignment Reel 018604, Frame 0709, recorded December 5, 2006.

Appeal 2011-002502
Application No. 10/843,304

2
STATEMENT OF CASE2
Appellant appeals under 35 U.S.C. § 134 from a final rejection of
claims 8 and 11-14. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We AFFIRM.

THE INVENTION
Appellant’s disclosure relates to a method for controlling a logistics
chain which can be implemented using the contents of a tank or silo
containers. (Spec. 2.)
Claim 8, reproduced below, is illustrative of the claimed subject
matter:
8. A method for controlling a logistics chain whereby various
enterprises are involved in the logistics chain having multiple
inventories like flow materials, intermediate products or end
products, comprising the steps of:
continuously registering the inventories with sensors equipped
with an Internet connection;
registering the dynamic behavior of a measurement by its rate of
change;
transmitting the measurements of the sensors to the various
enterprises to a central control unit;
evaluating the measurements in the control unit· by a supply
chain management application; and
initiating business processes like production requirements,
ordering of substances or additional ingredients, and allocations
of transport capacities on the basis of the actual values and the

2 Our decision will make reference to Appellant’s Appeal Brief and
response to Notice of Non-Compliant Brief (collectively referred to as,
“Br.,” filed November 2, 2009 and December 18, 2009, respectively) and the
Examiner’s Answer (hereinafter “Ans.,” mailed August 16, 2010).
Appeal 2011-002502
Application No. 10/843,304

3
dynamic changes of the measured inventory from the supply
chain management application.
(App. Br., Claims Appendix 20.)

PRIOR ART REJECTIONS
The prior art references relied upon by the Examiner in rejecting the
claims are:
Blanchard 4,716,536 Dec. 29, 1987
Nicholas et al. 5,423,457 Jun. 13, 1995
Skibinski 2002/0225634 A1 Dec. 4, 2003

The Examiner rejected claims 8 and 11-14 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a)
as unpatentable over Blanchard, Nicholas, and Skibinski.

ISSUE3
Does the combination of Blanchard, Nicholas and Skibinski teach or
suggest the steps of “continuously registering the inventories with sensors
equipped with an Internet connection” and “initiating business processes . . .
on the basis of the actual values and the dynamic changes of the measured
inventory,” as generally recited by independent claim 8 such that it renders
the subject matter of claim 8, and its dependent claims 11-14 obvious under
35 U.S.C. § 103(a)?

3 We have considered in this decision only those arguments that Appellant
actually raised in the Brief. Arguments which Appellant could have made
but chose not to make in the Brief are deemed to be waived. See 37 C.F.R. §
41.37(c)(1)(vii).
Appeal 2011-002502
Application No. 10/843,304

4
FINDINGS OF FACT
Blanchard
B1. Blanchard is directed to a method for calibrating the
measurement of liquids in a tank in real-time, or near the time of actual use,
through the use of sensors, cables, and electronic unit environments. (Col. 4,
ll. 30-37; See also Fig. 1.)
B2. Blanchard describes that its system measures liquids in storage,
transfer, or at the point of custody transfer (e.g., off-loading from a cargo
carrier). (Col. 1, ll. 5-12.)

Nicholas
N1. Nicholas is directed to a real time, dynamic, volumetric product
loss detection system including a POS computer and in-tank volume
measuring probes. Nicholas’s system uses software to analyze the data
received from at least the measuring probes and compares data from product
sales, tank levels, and delivery inputs using statistical methods. (Col. 3, ll.
32-46.)
N2. Nicholas describes that its system can connect and transmit data
to an off-site technician or host computer for further analysis. (Col. 3, ll. 59-
62.)

Skibinski
S1. Skibinski is directed to an e-business supply chain management
system which provides inter alia order planning and delivery monitoring
through “process-oriented planning, control and optimization throughout the
Appeal 2011-002502
Application No. 10/843,304

5
value creation chain and across all process levels--from production of the
raw materials right through to delivery to the end customer.”
(¶¶ [0029], [0038].)
S2. Skibinski describes that its system collects regular forecasts from
sales regions and key customers, allocates the total demands to certain
production sites, and factory specific planning to providing rolling forecasts
to suppliers and outsourcing partners. (¶ [0058].)

ANALYSIS
Claims 8 and 11-14 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over
Blanchard, Nicholas, and Skibinski.
Independent claim 8
Appellant generally argues that the combination of Blanchard,
Nicholas, and Skibinski fails to teach or suggest the steps of “continuously
registering the inventories with sensors equipped with an Internet
connection” and “initiating business processes . . . on the basis of the actual
values and the dynamic changes of the measured inventory from the supply
chain management application.” (Br. 13.) To support this argument,
Appellant makes assertions based on Blanchard, Nicholas and Skibinski,
individually, rather than the combination proposed by the Examiner. (Br.
13-18.) Specifically, Appellant asserts that Blanchard is not directed to a
logistics chain and does not disclose “sensors equipped with an Internet
connection” (Br. 13-14), Blanchard and Nicholas fail to disclose the step of
“initiating business processes . . .” (Br. 16), and Skibinski fails to disclose
Appeal 2011-002502
Application No. 10/843,304

6
evaluating the dynamic behavior of a measurement by its rate of change.
(Br. 17-18.)
We are unpersuaded by Appellant’s assertions as they attack the
references separately, even though the rejection is based on the combined
teachings of the references. Nonobviousness cannot be established by
attacking the references individually when the rejection is predicated upon a
combination of prior art disclosures. See In re Merck & Co. Inc., 800 F.2d
1091, 1097 (Fed. Cir. 1986).
Contrary to Appellant’s assertions, the Examiner relies on Blanchard
to disclose sensors which continually measure liquids by their rate of
change. (FF B1.) Moreover, we find that Blanchard is related to a logistics
chain consistent with Appellant’s suggested definition, as it manages the
flow of goods within a supplier and purchaser network (i.e., various
enterprises). (FF B2; See also Br. 13.) To address “sensors equipped with
an Internet connection,” the Examiner relies on Nicholas. (Ans. 3.)
Nicholas describes a real time, dynamic, volumetric product loss detection
system which includes a POS computer and in-tank volume measuring
probes to analyze data inputs. (FF N1.) Nicholas discloses that its system
can transmit these data to off-site computers, which we find satisfies an
Internet connection. (FF N2.) Thus, we find that the combination of
Blanchard, Nicholas and Skibinski teaches or suggests the step of
“continuously registering the inventories with sensors equipped with an
Internet connection,” as recited by claim 8.
Continuing, the Examiner did not rely on either of Blanchard or
Nicholas alone to teach or suggest the step of “initiating business processes,”
Appeal 2011-002502
Application No. 10/843,304

7
but instead relied on Skibinski. (Ans. 5.) Skibinski is directed to an e-
business supply chain management system which uses process-oriented
planning, control and optimization throughout the supply chain from
production of the raw materials right through to delivery to the customer.
(FF S1, S2.) Based on this teaching, the Examiner concluded that it would
be obvious to incorporate the continuously updated rate of change
measurement data received from the “sensors equipped with an Internet
connection” (FF B1, N1, N2), as taught by Blanchard and Nicholas, with the
supply chain management software disclosed in Skibinski, which provides
the claimed business processes. (Ans. 4-5; See also FF 2.) Thus, the
combination of Blanchard, Nicholas, and Skibinski teaches or suggests the
step of “initiating business processes . . . on the basis of the actual values
and the dynamic changes of the measured inventory. . . .” as recited by claim
8.
Based on the foregoing, we find that the Examiner has provided an
articulated reasoning with a rational underpinning to support the conclusion
of obviousness. KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 418 (2007).
Accordingly, Appellant’s arguments are not persuasive, and as such, we
sustain the Examiner’s rejection of claim 8 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
unpatentable over Blanchard, Nicholas, and Skibinski.

Dependent claims 11-14
Appellant does not separately argue claims 11-14 (Br. 18), which
depend from independent claim 8, and so we sustain the rejection of claims
Appeal 2011-002502
Application No. 10/843,304

8
11-14 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Blanchard, Nicholas,
and Skibinski for the same reasons we found as to claim 8 supra.

CONCLUSION
We conclude that the combination of Blanchard, Nicholas and
Skibinski teaches or suggests the steps of “continuously registering the
inventories with sensors equipped with an Internet connection. . .” and
“initiating business processes . . . on the basis of the actual values and the
dynamic changes of the measured inventory. . . .” as generally recited by
independent claim 8 such that it renders the subject matter of claim 8, and its
dependent claims 11-14 obvious under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a).

DECISION
We affirm the Examiner’s rejection of claims 8 and 11-14.
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)(1).

AFFIRMED

rvb