Ex Parte Benad et alDownload PDFPatent Trial and Appeal BoardMar 1, 201611898482 (P.T.A.B. Mar. 1, 2016) Copy Citation 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 Copy with citationCopy as parenthetical citation