Ex Parte Von Helmolt et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Dec 29, 2016

13537972 (P.T.A.B. Dec. 29, 2016)

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.
13/537,972 06/29/2012 Hans-Ulrich A. Von Helmolt 2005P00116WOUS01 5118
62730 7590
SAP SE
3410 HILLVIEW AVENUE
PALO ALTO, CA 94304
EXAMINER
AN, IG TAI
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
3687
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
01/03/2017 ELECTRONIC
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.
Notice of the Office communication was sent electronically on above-indicated "Notification Date" to the
following e-mail address(es):
APRIL.MENG@SAP.COM
GIPinhouse@sap.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte HANS-ULRICH A. VON HELMOLT and
ANDREAS HUBER-BUSCHBECK
Appeal 2014-0062651
Application 13/537,9722
Technology Center 3600
Before JOSEPH A. FISCHETTI, BRUCE T. WIEDER, and
TARA L. HUTCHINGS, Administrative Patent Judges.
HUTCHINGS, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Appellants appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Examiner’s final
rejection of claims 1—11 and 20. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C.
§ 6(b).
We REVERSE.
1 Our decision references Appellants’ Appeal Brief (“App. Br.,” filed
Nov. 29, 2013) and Reply Brief (“Reply Br.,” filed Apr. 24, 2014), and the
Examiner’s Answer (“Ans.,” mailed Feb. 24, 2014) and Final Office Action
(“Final Act.,” mailed May 31, 2013).
2 Appellants identify SAP AG as the real party in interest. App. Br. 3.
Appeal 2014-006265
Application 13/537,972
CLAIMED INVENTION
Appellants’ claimed invention “relates to methods and systems for
managing product allocations of an inventory within a supply chain
management system.” Spec. 12.
Claim 1, the sole independent claim on appeal, is reproduced below:
1. A computer-implemented framework for
maintaining product allocation data objects within an e-business
system, the framework comprising:
a plurality of product allocation data objects which are
representative of allocations of products, each product allocation
data object assigned to a product;
a plurality of software modules each software module to
provide access to at least one of the plurality of product
allocation data objects wherein each product allocation data
object is processed by one of the plurality of software modules;
a plurality of computer systems;
an interface to access the plurality of software modules to
provide concurrent access for the plurality of computer systems
to the plurality of software modules; and
a plurality of data storages to store each product allocation
data object in a data structure within at least one of the data
storages.
REJECTIONS
Claim 5 is rejected under 35U.S.C. § 112, second paragraph, as
indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject
matter that Appellants regard as the invention.
Claims 1—11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) as anticipated by
Vaughan (US 2003/0036981 Al, pub. Feb. 20, 2003).
Claim 20 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over
Vaughan and Ebert (US 2003/0227392 Al, pub. Dec. 11, 2003).
2
Appeal 2014-006265
Application 13/537,972
ANALYSIS
Indefiniteness
Claim 1 recites a computer-implemented framework comprising, in
part, a plurality of software modules. Claim 5 depends from claim 1 and
further recites that the plurality of software modules include at least one of:
method for updating a product allocation data object, method for reading
product allocation data objects, method for searching for at least one product
data allocation object, method for locking a product allocation data object,
and method for unlocking a product allocation data object.
The Examiner rejects claim 5 as indefinite under 35U.S.C. § 112,
second paragraph, because the Examiner takes the position that claim 5 is a
hybrid claim. Final Act. 11 (“Since claim 1 is a system claim, claim 5
would be expected to be a system claim but claim 5 instead claims
methods.”)
It is true, as a legal matter, that a claim reciting both a system and a
method of using that system would not comply with the definiteness
standard pursuant to the second paragraph of 35 USC § 112. See IPXL
Holdings, LLC v. Amazon.com, Inc., 430 F.3d 1377, 1384—85 (Fed. Cir.
2005) (holding a claim covering both an apparatus and a method of using
that apparatus as indefinite, because it is unclear whether infringement
occurs “when one creates a system that allows the user [to practice the
claimed method step] or . . . when the user actually [practices the method
step].”).
Here, however, one of ordinary skill in the art would understand the
“methods” recited in claim 5 to describe the software modules in terms of
3
Appeal 2014-006265
Application 13/537,972
functional capabilities, and not to describe both an apparatus and a method
of use of that apparatus.
Thus, we do not sustain the Examiner’s rejection of claim 5 under
35 U.S.C. § 112, second paragraph.
Anticipation
We are persuaded by Appellants’ argument that the Examiner erred in
rejecting claim 1 under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) because Vaughan does not
disclose “a plurality of software modules each software module to provide
access to at least one of the plurality of product allocation data objects
wherein each product allocation data object is processed by one of the
plurality of software modules,” and “an interface to access the plurality of
software modules to provide concurrent access for the plurality of computer
systems to the plurality of software modules,” as recited in claim 1. App.
Br. 8-10; see also Reply Br. 4—6. The Examiner maintains that the rejection
is proper, and directs our attention to Vaughan at Figure 4 and paragraphs 60
and 106 as describing the argued limitations. Ans. 4. However, we find
nothing in the cited portions of Vaughan that discloses the argued
limitations.
Vaughan relates to an online travel information and reservation
system, and more particularly, to a system and method for managing
inventory item queries and reservation requests for a variety of inventory
items. Vaughan 11. Vaughan describes a method for processing an
available inventory item query corresponding to inventory defined by stock-
keeping unit (SKU) information. Id. ^ 15. SKU information includes a
SKU record defining a primary level of detail for the inventory item, and a
4
Appeal 2014-006265
Application 13/537,972
SKU inventory record corresponding to the SKU record, defining a second
level of detail for the inventory item. Id.
A mass memory 408 stores, in part, a client interface application 412,
a supplier interface application 414, an inventory processing application 416,
and a reservation processing application 418. Id. Fig. 4, || 58, 60, 61.
Client interface application 412 establishes a communication channel
between the travel server and one or more client computing devices. Id.
1 60. Similarly, supplier interface application 414 establishes a
communication channel between the travel server and one or more suppliers.
Id. Inventory processing application 416 processes inventory, and
reservation processing application 418 processes reservations. Id. 161. The
travel server may process multiple reservation requests concurrently. Id.
1106. The reservation processing application places inventory item
information in a hold status. Id.
The Examiner finds that Vaughan describes “multiple software
application/modules are stored in mass memory and multiple software
application/modules are used to access a SKU and reserve/allocate SKU.”
Final Act. 13. However, we agree with Appellants that Vaughan does not
describe multiple reservation process modules. See App. Br. 9. Instead,
Vaughan describes a single reservation processing application that can
process multiple reservation requests concurrently using the SKU inventory
records. Vaughan, Fig. 4,1106.
Because Vaughan does not describe a plurality of reservation
processing modules, Vaughan also fails to describe that each product
allocation data object is processed by one of the plurality of reservation
process modules, as required by claim 1. For similar reasons, Vaughan also
5
Appeal 2014-006265
Application 13/537,972
does not describe an interface that provides concurrent access for the
plurality of computer systems to the plurality of software modules, as recited
in claim 1.
In view of the foregoing, we do not sustain the Examiner’s rejection
of claim 1 under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b). We also will not sustain the
Examiner’s rejections of claims 2—11, which depend from claim 1.
Obviousness
Claim 20 depends from independent claim 1. The Examiner has not
established that Ebert cures the deficiencies of Vaughan, as set forth above
with respect to claim 1. Therefore, we do not sustain the Examiner’s
rejection of claim 20 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a).
DECISION
The Examiner’s rejection of claim 5 under 35 U.S.C. § 112, second
paragraph, is reversed.
The Examiner’s rejection of claims 1—11 under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) is
reversed.
The Examiner’s rejection of claim 20 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) is
reversed.
REVERSED
6