Ex Parte Wille

Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences

Jun 18, 2010

10454520 (B.P.A.I. Jun. 18, 2010)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE 1
___________ 2
3
BEFORE THE BOARD OF PATENT APPEALS 4
AND INTERFERENCES 5
___________ 6
7
Ex parte VOLKMAR WILLE 8
___________ 9
10
Appeal 2009-010909 11
Application 10/454,520 12
Technology Center 3600 13
___________ 14
15
Decided: June 18, 2010 16
___________ 17
18
Before MURRIEL E. CRAWFORD, HUBERT C. LORIN, and 19
ANTON W. FETTING, Administrative Patent Judges. 20
FETTING, Administrative Patent Judge. 21
DECISION ON APPEAL 22
23
Appeal 2009-010909
Application 10/454,520

2
STATEMENT OF THE CASE 1
Volkmar Wille (Appellant) seeks review under 35 U.S.C. § 134 (2002) 2
of a final rejection of claims 14-17 and 19-20, the only claims pending in the 3
application on appeal. 4
We have jurisdiction over the appeal pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 6(b) 5
(2002). 6
SUMMARY OF DECISION1 7
We AFFIRM. 8
THE INVENTION 9
The Appellant invented a system and a data processing installation for 10
managing products and product parts and/or the serial numbers associated 11
with the products and product parts (Specification ¶ 0001). 12
An understanding of the invention can be derived from a reading of 13
exemplary claim 14, which is reproduced below [bracketed matter and some 14
paragraphing added]. 15
14. A product management data processing system, comprising: 16
[1] at least one data input device, at least one data output 17
device, and at least one data memory device with a database; 18

1 Our decision will make reference to the Appellant’s Appeal Brief (“App.
Br.,” filed October 7, 2008) and the Examiner’s Answer (“Ans.,” mailed
January 22, 2009), and Final Rejection (“Final Rej.,” mailed February 25,
2008).
Appeal 2009-010909
Application 10/454,520

3
[2] a goods-receipt module for checking goods delivered 1
from a supplier and storing the serial numbers of the goods in 2
the database, said goods-receipt module thereby managing the 3
products, product parts, and/or the serial numbers associated 4
with the products and product parts; 5
[3] wherein material master data are assigned serial numbers, 6
optionally with combinational logic for a plurality of serial 7
numbers, and structure data for the serial numbers, and the data 8
are stored in the database; 9
[4] a disassembly module for recording the serial numbers of 10
product parts or products comprising product parts, and 11
assigning the serial numbers to a leading serial number of the 12
product and storing the serial numbers in the database; 13
[5] an assembly module for assigning the serial numbers of 14
the product parts to one another, linking with a leading serial 15
number of the product, and storing in the database; 16
[6] a goods issue module managing an outflow of products 17
or product parts, said goods issue module, upon delivery of the 18
products to a customer or upon fitting of spares or installation 19
of a product at an installation site, removing the serial numbers 20
of the issued products from the database or marking the serial 21
numbers of the issued product as issued. 22
23
THE REJECTIONS 24
The Examiner relies upon the following prior art: 25
Downs et al. US 6,226,618 B1 May 1, 2001
Hawman et al. US 2003/0040826 A1 Feb. 27, 2003
Bjornson US 6,505,145 B1 Jan. 7, 2003
26
Claims 14-17 and 19-20 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as 27
unpatentable over Bjornson, Hawman, and Downs. 28
Appeal 2009-010909
Application 10/454,520

4
1
ISSUES 2
The issue of whether the Examiner erred in rejecting claims 14-17 and 3
19-20 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Bjornson, Hawman, 4
and Downs turns on whether Bjornson describes a goods-receipt module, 5
Hawman describes a disassembly module, and whether there is a motivation 6
to combine Bjornson, Hawman, and Downs. 7
8
FACTS PERTINENT TO THE ISSUES 9
The following enumerated Findings of Fact (FF) are believed to be 10
supported by a preponderance of the evidence. 11
Facts Related to the Prior Art 12
Bjornson 13
01. Bjornson is directed to a process for gathering, synthesizing, 14
and analyzing data relating to equipment failure (Bjornson 3:43-15
46). Bjornson also describes a method for generating a proposal 16
for replacement parts when required to take corrective action to 17
resolve a failure of a piece of rotating equipment (Bjornson 4:30-18
38). 19
02. Bjornson describes collecting data to determine the cause of 20
equipment failure, determining and implementing corrective 21
actions, and providing an up to date equipment database and plant 22
reliability performance analyzer database with current data 23
Appeal 2009-010909
Application 10/454,520

5
(Bjornson 10:38-44). Information on customers, plants, and 1
equipment is collected by the system (Bjornson 10:50-60). 2
Equipment information includes equipment identification 3
numbers, serial numbers, types, manufacturers, and model 4
information (Bjornson 10:56-60). For adding equipment to the 5
equipment database, a request for quote module receives input 6
data required to correct equipment failure (Bjornson 18:45-62). 7
Recommended equipment can be electronically order (Bjornson 8
18:66-67 and 19:1). The ordered equipment data is then provided 9
to the equipment database (Bjornson 19:15-17). 10
Hawman 11
03. Hawman is directed to a computerized method and system for 12
managing the maintenance, repair, or overhaul of a gas turbine 13
engine (Hawman ¶ 0002). Hawman is concerned with the 14
maintenance and coordination of information and parts during 15
maintenance procedures (Hawman ¶ 0019). 16
04. Hawman describes the method begins with work scope 17
definition (Hawman ¶ 0041). Subsequently, the maintenance 18
facility receives an engine and tears down the engine to the part 19
level (Hawman ¶ 0042). A technician consults publications or a 20
tear-down module regarding the engine in order to properly tear 21
down the engine (Hawman ¶’s 0045 and 0064). An expected bill 22
of materials (BOM) is a list of the parts that the maintenance 23
facility should find within the engine during disassembly and the 24
expected BOM is stored on the server in an expected BOM 25
Appeal 2009-010909
Application 10/454,520

6
database (Hawman ¶ 0061). The expected BOM uses a 1
hierarchical format to show the relationship between parts 2
(Hawman ¶ 0069). Once the engine is broken down to the part 3
level, each of the parts is inspected by the technician to determine 4
whether the part needs to be replaced (Hawman ¶ 0042). The 5
technician can compare the parts visually based on part 6
information stored in the database (Hawman ¶ 0068). The parts 7
are serialized and bar-coded making it easier to look up the parts 8
in the database (Hawman ¶ 0071). Included in the bar code 9
information is a status section that describes the status of the part 10
(Hawman ¶ 0080). Statuses for parts include “remove from 11
service” or “created” (Hawman ¶ 0081). If necessary, parts are 12
routed to different areas in the maintenance facility (Hawman ¶ 13
0085). Once a part is received in the proper location, the part tag 14
is scanned to access the part electronic record and serial number 15
(Hawman ¶ 0086). All parts needed to reassemble the engine are 16
obtained and the engine is assembled (Hawman ¶ 0044). 17
Downs 18
05. Downs is directed to a system and related tools for the secure 19
delivery and rights management of digital assets, such as print 20
media, films, games, and music over global communications 21
networks such as the Internet and the World Wide Web (Downs 22
1:52-57). Downs is concerned with the electronic distribution of 23
products and distribution channels for better timed release of 24
inventory (Downs 1:59-66 and 2:39-45). 25
Appeal 2009-010909
Application 10/454,520

7
06. Downs describes digital content stores that distribute electronic 1
content and maintain certificates associated with distributed 2
content (Downs 43:15-18). A certificate includes a version 3
number, a unique serial number, a signing algorithm, the name of 4
the issuer, a range of dates for which the certificate is valid, the 5
name of the electronic digital content store, a public key, and a 6
hash code (Downs 43:18-27). 7
8
ANALYSIS 9
Claims 14-17 and 19-20 rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as 10
unpatentable over Bjornson, Hawman, and Downs 11
The Appellant first contends that (1) Bjornson fails to describe a goods-12
receipt module (App. Br. 6-7 and 9-10). We disagree with the Appellant. 13
Limitation [2] of claim 14 recites a goods-receipt module and limitation [2] 14
requires a goods-receipt module for checking received goods and storing the 15
serial numbers of the goods in a database, thereby managing the goods and 16
the serial numbers associated with the goods. 17
Bjornson describes an equipment monitoring and maintenance system 18
(FF 01). Bjornson further describes that maintaining equipment requires the 19
ordering of replacement parts for parts that have failed (FF 01-02). When an 20
equipment part fails, the system recommends and orders an appropriate 21
replacement part (FF 02). The replacement part is cataloged into an 22
equipment database (FF 02). The information cataloged for each part 23
includes an identification number and a serial number (FF 02). The 24
equipment database is maintained and updated (FF 02). As such, Bjornson 25
Appeal 2009-010909
Application 10/454,520

8
describes method for receiving goods or parts, storing the serial numbers for 1
the received parts in an equipment database, and managing the goods and 2
their respective serial numbers. The Appellant specifically argues that 3
Bjornson is only concerned with the failure and repair options; however, 4
while Bjornson is concerned with failure and repair options, Bjornson 5
further describes the broad functionality required by the goods-receipt 6
module as discussed supra. As such, the Appellant’s argument is not found 7
persuasive. 8
The Appellant also contends that (2) Hawman fails to describe a 9
disassembly module and the assignment of partial numbers to other serial 10
numbers or leading serial numbers as required by the claimed invention 11
(App. Br. 7). We disagree with the Appellant. First, limitation [4] recites a 12
disassembly module and limitation [4] specifically requires a disassembly 13
module for recording the serial numbers for product parts and assigning the 14
serial numbers to a leading serial number of the product and storing the 15
serial numbers in a database. The Appellant’s argument that there is no 16
assignment of partial numbers to other serial numbers or leading serial 17
numbers is not persuasive because limitation [4] does not require a partial 18
number or a partial serial number. 19
Hawman describes a disassembly process for a turbine engine (FF 03). 20
Hawman describes that a technician disassembles an engine and inspects the 21
individual parts of the engine (FF 04). Each individual part has a bar code 22
associated to it that when scanned reveals part information, including the 23
part serial number (FF 04). The technician can further follow an expected 24
bill of material (BOM) to verify all of the parts of the engine (FF 04). The 25
expected BOM is a hierarchical list that illustrates all of the parts in the 26
Appeal 2009-010909
Application 10/454,520

9
engine and their relationship (FF 04). That is, the parts and their serial 1
numbers in the BOM are illustrated in a hierarchical outline manner thereby 2
drawing the relationship between all of the parts. This is functionally the 3
same as drawing a relationship between parts by assigning serial numbers to 4
leading serial numbers. As such, Hawman describes the disassembly 5
module as require by the claimed invention. 6
The Appellant further contends that (3) there is no motivation to 7
combine Bjornson, Hawman, and Downs (App. Br. 7-8). We disagree with 8
the Appellant. Bjornson, Hawman, and Downs are concerned with the 9
accurate management of products (FF 01, 03, and 05). Bjornson solves this 10
problem by cataloging parts by their serial number and updating an 11
equipment database with the addition or subtraction of products or parts (FF 12
02). Hawman solves this problem by maintaining an accurate bill of 13
material that allows technicians to properly determine which parts are 14
present using bar codes and serial numbers and the status of each of the parts 15
(FF 04). Downs solves this problem by creating certificates for distributed 16
products where the certificates include a serial number so that content stores 17
can track which products were transmitted to which customers (FF 06). 18
As such, Bjornson, Hawman, and Downs address the product 19
management concerns by storing serial numbers to monitor and track 20
products and parts. Therefore, a person with ordinary skill in the art would 21
have combined the cited prior art in order to increase the capabilities in 22
managing and monitoring products and parts. Since Bjornson, Hawman, and 23
Downs are all concerned with the same problem, a person with ordinary skill 24
in the art would have been lead to combine their teachings. 25
Appeal 2009-010909
Application 10/454,520

10
The Examiner did not err in rejecting claims 14-17 and 19-20 under 35 1
U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Bjornson, Hawman, and Downs. 2
3
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW 4
The Examiner did not err in rejecting claims 14-17 and 19-20 under 35 5
U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Bjornson, Hawman, and Downs. 6
7
DECISION 8
To summarize, our decision is as follows. 9
• The rejection of claims 14-17 and 19-20 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as 10
unpatentable over Bjornson, Hawman, and Downs is sustained. 11
12
No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with this 13
appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a)(1)(iv). 14
15
AFFIRMED 16
17
18
19
mev 20
LERNER GREENBERG STEMER LLP 21
P O BOX 2480 22
HOLLYWOOD FL 33022-2480 23