Ex Parte Bienias

Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences

Jan 30, 2004

08724315 (B.P.A.I. Jan. 30, 2004)

The opinion in support of the decision being entered today was not
written for publication and is not binding precedent of the Board.
Paper No. 26
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
_____________
BEFORE THE BOARD OF PATENT APPEALS
AND INTERFERENCES
_____________
Ex parte RONALD M. BIENIAS
_____________
Appeal No. 2004-0391
Application No. 08/724,315
______________
ON BRIEF
_______________
Before THOMAS, HAIRSTON, and DIXON, Administrative Patent Judges.
HAIRSTON, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
This is an appeal from the final rejection of claims
2 through 5.
The disclosed invention relates to the maintenance of
inventory information for components in a given store location.
Claim 2 is the only independent claim on appeal, and it
reads as follows:
Appeal No. 2004-0391
Application No. 08/724,315
2
2. A pricing and ordering system for custom design of
interior layouts using standard off the shelf components
comprising: a computer storage and retrieval device in
connection with a display monitor, said computer having a
means for providing visual representations of said
components on said display monitor, said system including a
means to maintain and update inventory information
associated with each of said components, said inventory
information comprising pricing of said components, the
number of said components available at a given store
location and the expected timeframe of when more of said
components will be available at said location, a means for
displaying said inventory information associated with a
given component in response to commands input by the user;
said computer having a means to update said inventory
information regarding pricing and availability of said
components.
The references relied on by the examiner are:
Cornwell 5,255,207 Oct. 19, 1993
Johnson et al. (Johnson) 6,055,516 Apr. 25, 2000
(effective filing date Aug. 10, 1994)
Claims 2 through 5 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a)
as being unpatentable over Cornwell in view of Johnson.
Reference is made to the brief (paper number 22) and the
answer (paper number 24) for the respective positions of the
appellant and the examiner.
OPINION
We have carefully considered the entire record before us,
and we will reverse the obviousness rejection of claims 2 through
5.
Appeal No. 2004-0391
Application No. 08/724,315
3
In a prior decision in this case (paper number 14, page 4),
the Board reversed the obviousness rejection of claims 2 through
5 because “[t]he only mention of inventory in Cornwell is the use
of a bill of materials 48 (Figure 3) to make purchases of
materials to place in the cabinetmaker’s inventory (column 12,
lines 17 and 18),” because “Cornwell neither teaches nor would
have suggested to the skilled artisan adding a store’s inventory
of products and product availability to the products list
database used by the cabinetmaker,” and because “the
cabinetmaker’s inventory has nothing to do with the inventory
‘available at a given store location and the expected timeframe
of when more of said components will be available at said
location.’”
In the instant appeal, the examiner has added the teachings
of Johnson to the custom designed cabinet teachings of Cornwell.
With respect to the teachings of Cornwell, the examiner
acknowledges (answer, page 3) that “Cornwell does not explicitly
disclose displaying the quantity available or the expected
resupply date (backorder), nor updating the prices and quantities
within the inventory database.” According to the examiner
(answer, pages 3 and 4), Johnson discloses “a similar system for
ordering components through a network in which . . . the
Appeal No. 2004-0391
Application No. 08/724,315
4
inventory database is updated (col[.] 15, lines 45-46 and col[.]
18, lines 58-60) upon receiving the customer’s order and that the
customer is provided with information about components which are
not available, but have been requisitioned (i.e.[,] resupply
information) (col[.] 17, lines 60 - col[.] 18, line 34 and col[.]
19, lines 5-11) (See also Appendix VIII, ‘JIT Backorder Will
Occur’).” In view of the teachings of Johnson, the examiner
concludes (answer, page 4) that:
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having
ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was
made to display the quantity available and backorder
data to Cornwell’s customer and to update the inventory
database(s) when the price and/or quantity changes.
One would have been motivated to update the inventory
databases in order to provide the customer with the
most accurate data. One, also, would have been
motivated to provide Cornwell’s customer with the
availability and backorder data to include expected
arrival date in order to keep the customer better
informed of the status of his requisition.
Appellant argues throughout the brief that the examiner has
not shown any motivation for combining the teachings of Cornwell
and Johnson, and that the combined reference teachings are not
concerned with the time in which resupply of the inventory will
take place or will be available.
Even if we assume for the sake of argument that the skilled
artisan would have found it obvious to combine the teachings of
Appeal No. 2004-0391
Application No. 08/724,315
1 JIT is the acronym for Just-In-Time Inventory (column 3,
lines 54 through 61; Appendix VIII).
5
the references in order to provide the noted customer “with the
most accurate data,” and “to keep the customer better informed of
the status of his requisition” by providing “backorder data” to
the customer, we find that the statement a “JIT[1] BACKORDER WILL
OCCUR” would not have necessarily conveyed to the skilled artisan
the “expected arrival date” of the inventory as stated by the
examiner. Stated differently, the mere fact that inventory is on
backorder in Johnson does not necessarily mean that the time
frame in which it will be available would be made known to the
person using the system to place an order for a component. The
only mention of a time frame is appellant’s disclosed and claimed
invention, and such a time of availability of the component is
not available to the examiner in an obviousness rejection. For
this reason, and for the additional reason that Johnson probably
would not be concerned with a time of availability of the
backordered component in view of the availability of the
component at other inventory locations (Abstract; column 3, lines
23 through 28; column 5, lines 4 through 8; column 10, lines 49
through 55; column 14, lines 25 through 29), the obviousness
rejection of claims 2 through 5 is reversed.
Appeal No. 2004-0391
Application No. 08/724,315
6
DECISION
The decision of the examiner rejecting claims 2 through
5 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) is reversed.
REVERSED
JAMES D. THOMAS )
Administrative Patent Judge )
)
)
)
) BOARD OF PATENT
KENNETH W. HAIRSTON ) APPEALS AND
Administrative Patent Judge ) INTERFERENCES
)
)
)
)
JOSEPH L. DIXON )
Administrative Patent Judge )
KWH/hh
Appeal No. 2004-0391
Application No. 08/724,315
7
LAW OFFICES OF JOHN P. HALVONIK
15200 SHADY GROVE RD.
STE. 202
ROCKVILLE, MD 20850