Ex Parte Benad et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Mar 1, 2016

11898482 (P.T.A.B. Mar. 1, 2016)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE
111898,482
98804 7590
Reed Smith LLP
P.O. Box488
Pittsburgh, PA 15230
09/12/2007
03/03/2016
FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
John Benad
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
ATTORNEY DOCKET NO. CONFIRMATION NO.
10-597-US (gr47) 2459
EXAMINER
MARCUS, LELAND R
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
3623
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
03/03/2016 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):
ptoipinbox@reedsmith.com
mskaufman@reedsmith.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte JOHN BENAD, THORALF NEHLS,
ALEXANDER REDLICH, and REIKO RENTSCH
Appeal2013-007345 1
Application 11/898,4822
Technology Center 3600
Before ANTON W. PETTING, TARA L. HUTCHINGS, and
MATTHEWS. MEYERS, 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
rejection of claims 1-18. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We REVERSE.
1 Our decision references Appellants' Appeal Brief ("Appeal Br.," filed
Oct. 31, 2012) andReplyBrief("ReplyBr.," filed May 15, 2013), and the
Examiner's Answer ("Ans.," mailed Mar. 18, 2013).
2 Appellants identify F ACTON GmbH as the real party in interest. Appeal
Br. 1.
Appeal2013-007345
Application 11/898,482
CLAIMED fNVENTION
Appellants' claimed invention "generally relates to the field of
enterprise resource planning, particularly to the assessment of [the] cost of
goods manufactured, and, more specifically to a technique of deriving cost
estimates for given scenarios based on standard cost estimates." Spec. i-f 1.
Claim 1, reproduced below with added bracketed notations, is
representative of the subject matter on appeal:
1. A computer implemented method for automated
processing of a simulation of production scenarios to derive
standardized cost estimates based on product characteristics and
change requests comprising:
[(a)] receiving and storing a standard cost estimate
indicating standard costs of a business activity; and
[ (b)] using a design pattern to encapsulate product
characteristics to define one or more change requests comprising:
[ ( c)] receiving at least one change request based on
a production scenario, wherein the change request is
described by one or more command objects of the design
pattern \~1hich by inheritance are defined for storing
changes of calculation parameters for products in general;
[ ( d)] triggering the execution of the at least one
change request on a concrete product;
[ ( e)] receiving modification of the standardized cost
estimate; and
[(t)] deriving with a computing device an updated
standardized cost estimate indicating updated costs of the
business activity based on the at least one change request.
REJECTION
Claims 1-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) as anticipated by
Puri (US 6,751,622 Bl, iss. June 15, 2004) (hereinafter "Puri '622"), which
incorporates by reference Puri (US 7 ,440,909 B2, iss. Oct. 21, 2008) ("Puri
'909").
2
Appeal2013-007345
Application 11/898,482
ANALYSIS
Independent claim 1 and dependent claims 2-6
We are persuaded by Appellants' argument that the Examiner erred in
rejecting claim 1under35 U.S.C. § 102(b) because the Puri references do
not disclose receiving a change request, i.e., limitation ( c ), as recited in
claim 1. Appeal Br. 5, 8-10; see also Reply Br. 3-5. The Examiner cites
Puri '622 at column 12, lines 11-34 as disclosing limitation (c). Ans. 4.
However, we agree with Appellants that there is nothing in the cited portion
that discloses receiving a change request, as called for in limitation ( c ).
Puri '622 relates to managing large amounts of interrelated and
heterogeneous data using hierarchical data structures. Puri '622, col. 1, 11.
9-14. A hierarchical structure 100 includes a plurality of nodes, such as a
top node 110; parent nodes 120, 122; and child nodes 130, 132, 134, 136.
Id. col. 4, 11. 14--39, Fig. 1. The hierarchical structure not only indicates
parent-child relationships, but also allows for hard-pegging (i.e., strict
enforcement) of dependencies between parent and child nodes to be encoded
therein. Id. col. 4, 11. 43--4 7. By hard-pegging the dependencies, the
hierarchical structure can be traversed in either a top-down or bottom-up
direction while preserving the dependency relationships between the nodes.
Id. col. 5, 11. 31-37; see also id. col. 10, 11. 26-35.
The data referenced by the constituent nodes are "wholly separate"
from the nodal hierarchical structure. Id. col. 6, 11. 42--47. To accomplish
this separation, the data structures referenced by each of the nodes are stored
within a relational or object-oriented database. Id. col. 12, 11. 14--16. And
each node of the hierarchical structure stores a pointer to a data structure
stored in the database. Id. col. 6, 11. 52-58, Fig. 2.
3
Appeal2013-007345
Application 11/898,482
Puri '622 at column 12, lines 11-34 describes that the invention's
hierarchy and referenced data structures "lend[] itself particularly well" to
activities such as modeling, and provides a framework for accounting for
unforeseen costs. Yet, we see nothing in the cited portion that describes
receiving a change request, as called for in limitation ( c ).
Responding to Appellants' argument in the Response to Argument
section of the Answer, the Examiner explains that Puri '622 's hierarchy is a
design pattern, and Puri '622 's data structure referenced by the hierarchy is
the claimed "command object". But, again, the Examiner has not identified
where, or otherwise explained how, Puri discloses receiving a change
request, as recited in claim 1.
Moreover, we agree with Appellants that a data structure referenced
by a hierarchy, as disclosed by Puri '622, is not a command object, as that
term would be understood by one of ordinary skill upon reading Appellants'
Specification. See Reply Br. 4--5. Appellants' Specification describes a
command object as an object that stores rules that are, in tum, applied by
execution of the object. Spec. 7:22-23. The stored rules may be "complex."
Id. The Specification provides a number of examples of command objects in
the context of defining a change request, including the command objects
"ChangeWorkTime" and "ChangePrice" for executing changes to cost-
relevant parameters, WorkTime and Price. See id. 8:26-9:3, 10:12-15, Fig.
4. In our view, one of ordinary skill would understand, in view of the
Specification, a "command object" to be an object defining a command to be
executed.
Therefore, we do not sustain the Examiner's rejection under 35 U.S.C.
§ 102(b) of independent claim 1. For the same reason, we do not sustain the
4
Appeal2013-007345
Application 11/898,482
Examiner's rejection under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) of claims 2---6, which depend
from claim 1.
Independent claims 7 and 13 and dependent claims 8-12 and 14-18
Independent claims 7 and 13 include language substantially similar to
the language of claim 1. Therefore, we do not sustain the Examiner's
rejection under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) of independent claims 7 and 13, and
claims 8-12 and 14--18, which depend therefrom, for the same reasons set
forth above with respect to claim 1.
DECISION
The Examiner's rejection of claims 1-18 under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) is
reversed.
REVERSED
5