Ex Parte Wechsel

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Jul 14, 2015

10787205 (P.T.A.B. Jul. 14, 2015)

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.
10/787,205 02/27/2004 Hilmar Wechsel 247-010US 4680
131475 7590 07/14/2015
Dilworth IP - SAP
2 Corporate Drive, Suite 206
Trumbull, CT 06611
EXAMINER
NGUYEN, THUY-VI THI
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
3689
MAIL DATE DELIVERY MODE
07/14/2015 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 HILMAR WECHSEL
____________

Appeal 2012-005026
Application 10/787,205
Technology Center 3600
____________

Before: ANTON W. FETTING, MICHAEL W. KIM, and
JAMES A. WORTH, Administrative Patent Judges.

KIM, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL

STATEMENT OF THE CASE
This is an appeal from the final rejection of claims 1–6, 9–36, and 40–
47. We have jurisdiction to review the case under 35 U.S.C. §§ 134 and 6.
The invention relates generally to managing product returns by using
unique identifiers that serve as control instruments for handling the returns.
Spec. ¶ 1.
Independent claim 1, reproduced below, is further illustrative of the
claimed subject matter.
1. A computer-implemented method for managing a
return of a product, the method comprising the steps, performed
by a computer, of:
Appeal 2012-005026
Application 10/787,205

2
receiving at a first computer-implemented management
system a return request for the product, wherein the return
request is for a quantity of the product greater than one;
determining whether the return request is authorized;
creating a first record in the first system in response to a
determination that the return request is authorized, the first
record including a return authorization number (RAN);
issuing, from the first system, the RAN associated with
the return request;
creating a second record in a second computer-
implemented management system in response to receiving the
RAN from the first system, the second record being a
warehouse request comprising a pending delivery item, the
pending delivery item including the RAN, a product type, and
the quantity of the product associated with the return request;
searching a database of the second system for the
pending delivery item using a RAN associated with a product
received at a warehouse;
determining, based on searching the database, if the
quantity of the product associated with the return request
included in the second record matches a quantity of the product
received at the warehouse;
splitting the second record into a plurality of new records
including the RAN and having different statuses, wherein the
different statuses indicate return of a quantity of the product,
when the quantity of the product associated with the return
request included in the second record does not match the
quantity of the product received at the warehouse;
re-combining the plurality of new records into the second
record, when the quantity of the product associated with return
request included in the second record matches the quantity of
the product received at the warehouse; and
updating the second record to reflect that the quantity of
the product associated with the return request included in the
second record matches the quantity of the product received at
the warehouse.

Appeal 2012-005026
Application 10/787,205

3
Claims 1–6, 9–36, and 40–47 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
unpatentable over Hauser (US 6,536,659 B1, iss. Mar. 25, 2003) in view of
Bloom (US 2002/0178074 A1, pub. Nov. 28, 2002).
We AFFIRM.
ANALYSIS
We are not persuaded the Examiner erred in asserting that a
combination of Hauser and Bloom renders obvious claims 1–6, 9–36, and
40–47. Appeal Br. 21–35; Reply Br. 2–10. After considering Appellant’s
arguments, we agree with and adopt the Examiner’s findings and rationale,
as set forth on pages 32 to 38 of the Answer. Accordingly, we adopt them as
our own. In particular, (1) we agree with the Examiner that recitation of
“when” in independent claim 1, under a broadest reasonable construction,
creates a conditional “splitting” limitation that need not be met by the prior
art in order for the claim to be considered obvious; (2) we find that
paragraph 187 of Bloom generally discloses splitting a record when one
quantity is less than another quantity in a package shipping context, and are
persuaded that such a finding, when combined with the cited disclosures of
Hauser, corresponds properly to the recited “splitting” limitation; (3)
Appellant has not shown persuasively why Examiner’s common sense
rationale concerning the “re-combining” limitation would not have been
within the abilities of one of ordinary skill; and (4) we are unpersuaded that
the location of management system at a supplier is an unobvious difference.
We sustain the obviousness rejection of claims 1–6, 9–36, and 40–47.
Appeal 2012-005026
Application 10/787,205

4
DECISION
The decision of the Examiner to reject claims 1–6, 9–36, and 40–47 is
AFFIRMED.
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)(iv).
AFFIRMED
Ssc