Ex Parte Maresca et al

Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences

Jul 19, 2007

09752090 (B.P.A.I. Jul. 19, 2007)

The opinion in support of the decision being entered today was not written
for publication and is not binding precedent of the Board.
____________
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
____________
BEFORE THE BOARD OF PATENT APPEALS
AND INTERFERENCES
____________
Ex parte JOHN S. MARESCA,
ROBERT D. HAYES, BRENT R. JENSEN, EDWARD KOBEDA,
ERIC T. LAMBERT, MICHAEL J. WHITNEY,
KATHERINE J. PEARSALL, BENJAMIN J. STEELE JR.,
and PAUL A. ZULPA
____________
Appeal 2007-0223
Application 09/752,0901
Technology Center 2100
____________
Decided: July 19, 2007
____________

Before LEE E. BARRETT, JOSEPH L. DIXON, and
HOWARD B. BLANKENSHIP, Administrative Patent Judges.

BARRETT, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
This is a decision on appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Final
Rejection of claims 44-79. Claims 1-43 have been canceled. We have
jurisdiction pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We affirm-in-part.

1 Application for patent filed December 29, 2000, entitled "Method
and System for Providing an End-to-End Business Process for Electronic
Supplier Qualification and Quality Management," now U.S. Publication
US 2002/0087372 ('372 publication), published July 4, 2002.
Appeal 2007-0223
Application 09/752,090

2
BACKGROUND
The invention relates to facilitating supplier qualification and quality
management functions in a communications network environment.
Claim 44 is illustrative:
44. A method for facilitating supplier qualification and quality
management functions in a communications network environment,
comprising:

qualifying suppliers, parts, and technologies in a collaborative
network environment via a web-based user interface and shared data
repository, said qualifying suppliers, parts, and technologies
including:

acquiring supplier capabilities, part data, and supplier
technology data from at least one collaborative source via said
web-based user interface, said collaborative source including a
supplier, a manufacturing representative, and at least one of an
electronic catalog and a commercial data repository;

storing acquired data in said shared data repository, said
acquired data accessible to affected collaborative sources; and

performing quality management functions via said web-based
user interface and shared data repository, said quality management
functions including at least one of:

managing identified changes to a supplier product;

managing process changes proposed by a supplier;

assessing quality metrics provided by a supplier.

Appeal 2007-0223
Application 09/752,090

3
THE REFERENCES

Aycock US 5,765,138 Jun. 9, 1998
Gervais US 6,381,579 B1 Apr. 30, 2002
(filed Jun. 17, 1999)

THE REJECTION
Claims 44-79 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable
over Aycock and Gervais.

DISCUSSION
Claim groupings
Appellants argue the following groups of claims separately, where the
claims in each group stand or fall together:
Group 1 - Claims 44, 55, and 66
Group 2 - Claims 77-79
Group 3 - Claims 45, 56, and 67
Group 4 - Claims 47, 58, and 69
Group 5 - Claims 50, 51, 61, 62, 72, and 73
Group 6 - Claims 52, 63, and 74
Group 7 - Claims 53, 64, and 75

One of method claims 44-54 and 77 is analyzed as representative of
the claims in each group. Claims 46, 48, 49, 54, 57, 59, 60, 65, 68, 70, 71,
and 76 are not argued separately. Therefore, claims 48, 49, 59, 60, 70, and
71 are grouped with the claims in Group 1; claims 46, 57, and 68 are
grouped with the claims in Group 3, claims 54, 65, and 76 are grouped with
the claims in Group 4.
Appeal 2007-0223
Application 09/752,090

4
Group 1 - claims 44, 48, 49, 55, 59, 60, 66, 70, and 71
The Examiner reads the limitations of claim 44 onto Aycock and finds
that Aycock teaches the claimed invention except for a "web-based user
interface" and a "shared data repository" (Final Rejection 2). The Examiner
finds that Gervais disclosed a Web-based user interface and a shared data
repository for manufacturers and suppliers in a collaborative environment
and concludes that it would have been obvious to incorporate the Web-based
user interface and shared data repository teachings of Gervais into Aycock
because one would want to enhance the ability of a business enterprise to
organize access and sharing of information (Final Rejection 2-3).

(1)
The Examiner finds that Aycock discloses the claim limitation of
"qualifying suppliers, parts, and technologies in a collaborative network
environment" at column 3, lines 45-52, and column 7, lines 1-16 (Final
Rejection 2).
Appellants quotes column 3, lines 45-52, and argues (Br. 11): "While
Aycock may teach some aspect of supplier qualification, it is devoid of
teaching or suggesting qualifying suppliers, parts and technologies. The
general reference made in Aycock to a database that stores past and present
audit and performance data does not necessarily result in a capability to
perform qualification of supplier parts and technologies." (We assume
"supplier parts and technologies" in the second sentence was meant to be
"suppliers, parts, and technologies.")
Appeal 2007-0223
Application 09/752,090

5
The first issue is whether Appellants have shown that the Examiner
erred in finding that Aycock discloses "qualifying suppliers, parts, and
technologies."
Aycock discloses an apparatus and method for "interactive evaluation
of suppliers as proposed vendors for a project" (Abstract), "vendor
qualification" (col. 1, ll. 11-56), and a "system for the evaluation of suppliers
for a project" (col. 3, ll. 43-44). Therefore, Aycock discloses "qualifying
suppliers."
Aycock discloses that an "important consideration in vendor
qualification is quality (a product and/or service free from defects) and
reliability (a product having a relatively long mean time between failures)"
(col. 1, ll. 32-35). Aycock discloses that "[t]he on-site audit includes
validating the supplier responses to the RFP/RFQ, either by performing
actual tests on hardware or software systems, and/or by reviewing the
quality control procedures and processes at the supplier site" (col. 8,
ll. 27-31). Thus, qualifying the suppliers can involve "qualifying parts,"
where the parts can be hardware or software.
Aycock discloses that "the request for proposal/request for quotation
(RFP/RFQ) . . . includes requirements for technical specifications" (col. 6,
ll. 1-3), where the Examiner finds the "technical specification" to correspond
to "technologies" (Answer 4). We find no error in the Examiner's position
that "technical specifications" can be considered "technologies," as broadly
Appeal 2007-0223
Application 09/752,090

6
claimed, which are qualified as part of the supplier qualification. Thus,
qualifying the suppliers involves "qualifying technologies."
We conclude that Appellants have not shown that the Examiner erred
in finding that Aycock discloses "qualifying suppliers, parts, and
technologies."

(2)
The Examiner also finds that Aycock discloses the claim limitation of
"said collaborative source including a supplier, a manufacturing
representative, and . . . an electronic catalog" at column 1, lines 21-30, and
column 2, line 56, to column 3, line 22) (Final Rejection 2).
Appellants argue (Br. 11-12):
Aycock, however, is devoid of teaching a collaborative source. The
source of supplier information disclosed in Aycock is, at best, a
source; it is not a collaborative source. Aycock states "vendor
requirements are selected for vendor qualification . . . provided to a
supplier [and] . . . after receiving supplier responses to the
requirements, the supplier responses are assigned a scaled score"
(column 2, line 64 - column 3, line 4). Collaboration suggests more
than sending requests and receiving responses.

Appellants further argue that the "recognition by the examiner that
Aycock does not teach a web based user interface and shared data repository
lends strength to the Appellants['] contention that Aycock does not disclose
collaborative elements as referenced above" (Br. 12) because "[t]he web
based user interface and shared data repository . . . are integral components
and functions corresponding to these collaborative elements" (Br. 12).
Appeal 2007-0223
Application 09/752,090

7
The second issue is whether Appellants have shown that the Examiner
erred in finding that Aycock discloses "said collaborative source including a
supplier, a manufacturing representative, and . . . an electronic catalog."
Aycock discloses a supplier evaluation system 60 at Figure 2 designed
to allow generating a RFP/RFQ in an efficient manner by enabling access to
a plurality of evaluation system databases, to enable downloading of a
RFP/RFQ to a supplier, and to enable the supplier to have limited access to
the evaluation system databases (e.g., col. 9, ll. 3-21). The system includes a
specification database 62, a vendor database 64, and a "product database 66
that identifies product performance and reliability for existing products
supplied by existing and prior vendors" (col. 9, ll. 59-62). A "business
terminal system 70 provides a graphic user interface for a system designer
designing the RFP/RFQ and a buyer evaluating suppliers" (col. 10,
ll. 23-25). Alternatively, the business terminal system 70a may be remotely
accessible to the main processing system via a network 72 (col. 10,
ll. 20-23). The main processing system includes a supplier interface 69
enabling remote access of a supplier site 74 via communications network 72
(col. 10, ll. 55-62). The supplier may selectively access the databases of the
supplier evaluation system (e.g., col. 10, ll. 62-67).
The system in Figure 2 of Aycock is for "qualifying suppliers, parts,
and technologies." The product database 66 in Aycock corresponds to the
claimed source of an "electronic catalog." The business terminal systems 70
and 70a may provide source input from "a buyer evaluating suppliers"
Appeal 2007-0223
Application 09/752,090

8
(col. 10, l. 25), which corresponds to the claimed source of a "manufacturing
representative." The supplier at supplier site 74 provides input and
corresponds to the claimed source of a "supplier." As to Appellants'
arguments that the "source of supplier information disclosed in Aycock is, at
best, a source; it is not a collaborative source" (Br. 12), the supplier in
Aycock has access to the evaluation databases and uploads the RFP/RFQ
responses directly to the supplier evaluation system (col. 9, ll. 13-21; col. 10,
l. 62, to col. 11, l. 9). Because the manufacturing representative and the
supplier can work from the same documents over a network (albeit the
supplier in a more limited manner), this appears to meet the claim limitations
of a "collaborative network environment" and a "collaborative source."
Appellants have not specifically defined or argued what is meant by
"collaborative" or said how much collaboration is actually required; thus,
even a small amount of collaboration is all that is required to meet the broad
claim language. We will not read implied limitations into the word
"collaborative." Finally, since the suppliers and the buyer have access to the
evaluation system databases (col. 9, ll. 13-17; col. 10, ll. 62-67; col. 12,
l. 57, to col. 13, l. 4), the databases can be considered a "shared data
repository" for the collaboration system.
For these reasons, we conclude that Appellants have not shown that
the Examiner erred in finding that Aycock discloses "said collaborative
source including a supplier, a manufacturing representative, and . . . an
electronic catalog."
Appeal 2007-0223
Application 09/752,090

9
(3)
Appellants acknowledge that the Examiner has combined Gervais
with Aycock for its teaching the Web-based user interface and shared data
repository (Br. 12). It is argued that "[b]ecause Aycock does not disclose
the limitations indicated above with respect to claims 44, 66, and 77-79,
Gervais can not cure the deficiencies therein" (Br. 12). Thus, Appellants do
not contest the combination with Gervais.
It is noted that Aycock discloses a network based system in Figure 2,
but does not disclose that the network is the "Web." We agree with the
Examiner that one of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to
use a "Web" based system even without a reference because it was
notoriously well-known to conduct business and communication on the
World Wide Web of the Internet. Both the supplier and the buyer have user
interfaces (Figure 6 for supplier; col. 10, ll. 23-25 for the buyer).
Nevertheless, Gervais expressly discloses a Web-based user interface and
one skilled in the art would have been motivated to use a Web-based
interface as taught by Gervais for the network-based interface in Aycock
because of the widespread usage of the Internet and World Wide Web.
As noted in section (2), since the suppliers and the buyer have access
to the evaluation system databases (col. 9, ll. 13-17; col. 10, ll. 62-67), the
databases can be considered a "shared data repository" for the collaboration
system.

Appeal 2007-0223
Application 09/752,090

10
Conclusion
We conclude that the Examiner has established a prima facie case of
obviousness as to claim 44, which has not been rebutted. The rejection of
claims 44, 48, 49, 55, 59, 60, 66, 70, and 71 is affirmed.

Group 2 - claims 77-79
Claim 77 corresponds to the combination of independent claim 44 and
dependent claims 48 and 49. Claim 78 corresponds to the combination of
independent claim 55 and dependent claims 59 and 60. Claim 79
corresponds to the combination of independent claim 66 and dependent
claims 70 and 71. Method claim 77 is selected as representative of this
group. The arguments with respect to limitations of claims 77-79 common
to claims 44, 55, and 66 are addressed in the discussion of Group 1.
As to the additional limitations of "placing a technology survey on the
Web, said technology survey accessible to at least one supplier, said
technology survey associated with an engineering organization related to a
technology being surveyed" in claim 77, the Examiner refers to Figure 2 and
column 9, lines 3-35 of Aycock (Final Rejection 3-4).
Appellants argue (Br. 13):
If the Examiner is somehow suggesting that the standards recited in
Aycock are synonymous with the technology surveys recited in
Appellants['] claims, this interpretation is in error. The standards
disclosed in Aycock are not technology surveys, the latter of which
relates to questions that solicit structured responses for a given
technology.

Appeal 2007-0223
Application 09/752,090

11
Additionally, Aycock is devoid of teaching or suggesting that
said technology survey is associated with an engineering organization
related to a technology being surveyed.
The issue is whether Appellants have shown that the Examiner erred
in finding that Aycock discloses or suggests "placing a technology survey on
the Web, said technology survey accessible to at least one supplier, said
technology survey associated with an engineering organization related to a
technology being surveyed."
Appellants' Specification describes a "technical survey" as "a series of
technical questions that begin the technology qualification process"
('372 publication ¶ 21). The Specification does not describe what kind of
technical questions are in the technical survey. Aycock discloses that the
suppliers perform a self-evaluation/verification in which they respond to
questions (col. 12, ll. 37-56) and we see no reason why this cannot be termed
a "technical survey" absent a specific definition by Appellants. The supplier
qualification is based on hardware and software standards (col. 5, ll. 19-36),
such as hardware and software requirements for a voice mail system (col. 5,
ll. 44-65), and examples are given of an automobile manufacturer, a high-
technology systems integrator, and a telecommunications company (col. 1,
ll. 16-31), so one of ordinary skill in the art would reasonably find the buyer
sending out the RFP/RFQ in Aycock to be an engineering organization; i.e.,
the buyer is looking to evaluate suppliers for building a product which
requires engineering. We conclude that the Examiner has established a
Appeal 2007-0223
Application 09/752,090

12
prima facie case of obviousness as to claim 77, which has not been rebutted.
The rejection of claims 77-79 is affirmed.

Group 3 - claims 45, 56, and 67
Representative claim 45 recites "recommending at least one of a
technology, part, and supplier based on a purchasing entity's requirements
via said web-based user interface."
The Examiner finds that Aycock discloses recommending a supplier
at column 3, lines 35-60 (Final Rejection 3). Appellants argue that Aycock
does not teach a Web-based user interface and shared data repository,
lending strength to Appellants' contention that Aycock does not disclose
collaborative elements (Br. 14).
The issue is whether Appellants have shown that the Examiner erred
in concluding that the combination of Aycock and Gervais discloses or
suggests the limitations of claim 45.
Aycock provides a network-based system and method for interactive
evaluation and qualification (i.e., approval or recommending) of suppliers
(e.g., Figure 1, block 32). The method may involve evaluations of hardware
equipment or software (i.e., parts) (col. 8, ll. 27-31). Accordingly, Aycock
discloses the limitations of recommending a part and supplier in claim 45,
but not a "web-based" user interface. Aycock discloses a network-based
user interface, but does not disclose that the network is the "Web."
Appellants have not argued and, thus, have not pointed to any error in the
Examiner's finding that Gervais discloses a Web-based user interface, or
Appeal 2007-0223
Application 09/752,090

13
conclusion that such a system could be used for the network-base user
interface in Aycock. Thus, the rejection of claims 45, 56, and 67 is affirmed.

Group 4 - claims 47, 54, 58, 65, 69, and 76
Representative claims 47 recites "auditing a supplier and submitting
results of said auditing to said shared data repository, said results accessible
to affected collaborative sources via said web-based user interface."
The Examiner finds Aycock discloses auditing a supplier and
submitting results to a data repository at column 3, lines 35-60, while
Gervais discloses making results accessible to affected collaborative sources
via a web-based user interface at Figure 1 and column 1, lines 55-67 (Final
Rejection 3). Appellants argue that Aycock does not teach a web-based user
interface and shared data repository, lending strength to Appellants'
contention that Aycock does not disclose collaborative elements (Br. 14).
The issue is whether Appellants have shown that the Examiner erred
in concluding that the combination of Aycock and Gervais discloses or
suggests the limitations of claim 47.
Appellants have not pointed to any error in the Examiner's findings
that Aycock discloses auditing a supplier and submitting the results to a data
repository and that Gervais discloses a Web-based user interface, or to any
error in the Examiner's conclusion that such Web-based system in Gervais
could be used for the network-base user interface in Aycock. Although the
Examiner finds that Aycock does not disclose a "shared" data repository, as
noted in the discussion of Group 1, since the suppliers and the buyer have
Appeal 2007-0223
Application 09/752,090

14
access to the evaluation system databases in Aycock over a network (col. 9,
ll. 13-17; col. 10, ll. 62-67; col. 12, l. 57, to col. 13, l. 4), the databases can
be considered a "shared data repository" in a "collaboration network
environment." We conclude that Appellants have not shown that the
Examiner erred in concluding that the combination of Aycock and Gervais
discloses or suggests the limitations of claim 47. Thus, the rejection of
claims 47, 58, and 69 is affirmed. Claims 54, 65, and 76 are not separately
argued and therefore stand or fall with claims 47, 58, and 69. The rejection
of claims 54, 65, and 76 is affirmed.

Group 5 - claims 50, 51, 61, 62, 72, and 73
Representative claim 50 recites "said managing proposed changes to a
supplier process includes: submitting a proposed process change to said
shared data repository by a supplier, said proposed change accessible to
collaborative sources affected by said proposed process change via a
web-based user interface; accessing said proposed process change; analyzing
said proposed process change; and determining whether to accept said
proposed process change based upon said analyzing." Representative
claim 51 recites "[t]he method of claim 50, wherein said proposed changes
include at least of one short-term process change, long-term process change,
and off-specification change."
The Examiner finds that Aycock and Gervais do not disclose that the
data is a proposed change. The Examiner takes Official Notice that a
proposed change including a short term process change by a supplier was
Appeal 2007-0223
Application 09/752,090

15
well-known in the art and concludes that it would have been obvious to
incorporate this well-known knowledge into the combination of Aycock and
Gervais "to enhance the ability of a business enterprise[] to organize access
and sharing of information and application and to facilit[ate] the
management of supplier qualification" (Final Rejection 5).
Appellants note the Examiner's reasoning but do not respond to it
(Br. 15-16). Appellants note that claims recite that the proposed process
changes are provided to a shared data repository and are accessible to
collaborative sources via said web-based user interface, and that the
proposed process change is accessed, analyzed, and a determination is made
whether to accept the proposed process change. It is argued (Br. 16): "These
limitations clearly reflect the collaborative process that is featured in the
claims and which is not taught by Aycock or Gervais. The web based user
interface, shared data repository, and accessibility to affected collaborative
sources via web based user interface, all firmly support the Appellants[']
contentions that the limitations clearly distinguish these claims from Aycock
and Gervais."
The issue is whether Appellants have shown that the Examiner erred
in concluding that the combination of Aycock and Gervais discloses or
suggests the limitations of claims 50 and 51.
Appellants do not address the substance of the Examiner's rejection.
Appellants do not traverse the Examiner's finding of Official Notice and do
not say why it would not have been obvious for the data in Aycock to be
Appeal 2007-0223
Application 09/752,090

16
short term process changes. Thus, Appellants have not shown any error in
the Examiner's rejection. As noted in the discussion of Group 1, since the
suppliers and the buyer have access to the evaluation system databases in
Aycock over a network (col. 9, ll. 13-17; col. 10, ll. 62-67; col. 12, l. 57, to
col. 13, l. 4), the databases can be considered a "shared data repository" in a
"collaboration network environment."
Aycock discloses that the system allows buyers to "respond to
supplier queries regarding issued RFP/RFQ's" (col. 3, ll. 57-58). We agree
with the Examiner that one of ordinary skill in the art would have been
motivated to include "a proposed process change" (claim 50) to the
RFP/RFQ, where the change could be "one of short-term process change,
long-term process change, and off-specification change" (claim 51) in view
of the unchallenged Official Notice that proposed process changes by
suppliers were well known. That is, we agree that it was well known that
suppliers would have many suggestions for proposed changes in an
RFP/RFQ, e.g., to clarify the RFP/RFQ or to change the requirements so that
their parts or technologies would qualify, and that one of ordinary skill in the
art would have appreciated that the "supplier queries regarding issued
RFP/RFQ's" (col. 3, ll. 57-58) could include proposed changes. We
conclude that Appellants have not shown that the Examiner erred in
determining that the combination of Aycock and Gervais discloses or
suggests the limitations of claims 50 and 51. Accordingly, the rejection of
claims 50, 51, 61, 62, 72, and 73 is affirmed.
Appeal 2007-0223
Application 09/752,090

17
Group 6 - claims 52, 63, and 74
Representative claim 52 recites "said performing quality management
functions includes: identifying potential problems relating to a supplier;
alerting affected collaborative sources of said potential problems; notifying
management; and collaborating with said supplier associated with said
potential problems for determining a resolution; and generating a problem
report."
The Examiner finds these limitations taught at column 9, line 20 to
column 13, line 12, and column 8, lines 1-37 of Aycock. Appellants argue
that there is no teaching of any notification to management, much less a
notification of potential problems (Br. 16).
The issue is whether Appellants have shown that the Examiner erred
in concluding that the combination of Aycock and Gervais discloses or
suggests the limitations of claim 52.
The Examiner has not specifically described how the teachings of
Aycock or Gervais correspond to the limitations of claim 52. While it may
be that a system and method for qualifying suppliers will identify potential
problems and the buyer will work with the supplier to resolve the problem,
we do not find these limitations disclosed in Aycock or Gervais. Aycock
does go on to additional analysis if a supplier is not automatically approved
in step 32 of Figure 1, but it does not appear that this is based on potential
problems. It does not appear that the combination of Aycock and Gervais
Appeal 2007-0223
Application 09/752,090

18
discloses or suggests the limitations of claim 52. Accordingly, the rejection
of claims 52, 63, and 74 is reversed.

Group 7 - Claims 53, 64, and 75
Since the rejection of claims 52, 63, and 74 has been reversed in
Group 6, the rejection of claims 53, 64, and 75 which depend therefrom is
also reversed.

CONCLUSION
The rejection of claims 44-51, 54-62, 65-73, and 76-79 is affirmed.
The rejection of claims 52, 53, 63, 64, 74, and 75 is reversed.
No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with
this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a)(1)(iv).
AFFIRMED-IN-PART

pgc

Philmore H. Colburn II
Cantor Colburn LLP
55 Griffin Road South
Bloomfield, CT 06002