Ex Parte PURI et al

Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences

Jul 16, 2007

09235120 (B.P.A.I. Jul. 16, 2007)

The opinion in support of the decision being entered today was not written 1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
for publication and is not binding precedent of the Board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 ARVIND NATH PURI, VIJ DEEPAK and
GALINA ATLAS PATIL
____________________

Appeal 2006-2678
Application 09/235,120
Technology Center 1700
____________________

Decided: July 16, 2007
____________________

Before: MURRIEL E. CRAWFORD, HUBERT C. LORIN and
ANTON W. FETTING, Administrative Patent Judges.

CRAWFORD, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL

STATEMENT OF CASE
Appellants appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134 (2002) from a final rejection
of claims 1 to 7, 9 to 12 and 14 to 18, 21 to 24, 26 and 27. Claims 8, 13, 19,
20 and 25 have been cancelled. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b)
(2002).

Appeal 2006-2678
Application 09/235,120

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
THE INVENTION
Appellants’ claimed invention consists of a computer implemented
cost tracking and accounting method which includes the step of creating a
unique cost source identifier data structure (Specification 11).
Claim 1 under appeal reads as follows:
1. A computer implemented actual costing method for
collecting and presenting an actual cost of manufacturing an
item or performing a service, comprising the steps of:

collecting actual costs of performing a job,
manufacturing an item and/or purchasing an item,

creating a unique cost source identifier data structure for
each collected actual cost, each created cost source identifier
data structure including a plurality of attribute fields;

populating one of the plurality of attribute fields of the
created cost source identifier data structure with the collected
actual cost;

storing the populated cost source identifier data structure
in a memory of a computer;

associating each unique cost source identifier data
structure to a step carried out while manufacturing the item or
while performing the service; and

organizing and storing the cost source identifier data
structures within the computer as a hierarchical structure that is
modeled on:

a structure of the item manufactured or

a sequence of operations carried out while
performing the service;
2
Appeal 2006-2678
Application 09/235,120

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

implementing a selected accounting costing
method for actual cost collection and a selected accounting
costing method for actual cost presentation by accessing and
selectively traversing the hierarchical structure, the selected
accounting costing method for actual cost collection being
independent of the selected accounting costing method for cost
presentation.

THE REJECTION
The Examiner rejected claims 1 to 7, 9 to 12, 14 to 18, and 21 to 27
under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Conway in view of
Bone and Fahey.
The prior art relied upon by the Examiner in rejecting the claims on
appeal is:
Bone 4,918,602 Apr. 17, 1990
Conway 5,732,401 Mar. 24, 1998
Fahey 5,970,476 Oct. 19, 1999

The Examiner contends that Conway discloses a computer
implemented actual costing method which includes the step of creating a
unique cost source identifier data structure for each collected actual cost,
each created cost source identifier data structure including a plurality of
attribute fields. The Examiner relies on Bone for teaching utilizing costing
methods that may be independent of each other and Fahey for teaching
creating unique cost identifiers upon each occurrence of a transaction that
affects the actual cost of carrying out an activity.
3
Appeal 2006-2678
Application 09/235,120

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
Appellants contend that Conway does not discloses creating a unique
cost source identifier data structure, having a plurality of attribute fields, for
each collected actual cost and associating each unique source cost identifier
structure to a step carried out while manufacturing the item or performing
the service.
ISSUE
Whether Appellants have shown that the Examiner erred in finding
that Conway discloses the steps of creating a unique cost source identifier
data structure, having a plurality of attribute fields for each collected actual
cost and associating each unique cost source identifier data structure to a
step carried out while manufacturing the item or performing the service.

FINDINGS OF FACT
Appellants’ claimed invention consists of a computer implemented actual
costing method for collecting and presenting actual cost of manufacturing an
item or performing a service. The method includes the step of creating a
unique cost source identifier data structure for each collected actual cost
(Specification p. 5).
The specification defines cost source identifier data structure as a logical
structure that includes the identified and collected actual cost 110 of
manufacturing an item or items and/or the actual cost of performing a
business activity or activities (Specification p. 11). The logical or data
structure is depicted in Figure 1A. The data structure has several attribute
fields including collected actual cost 110, date 120 and quantity 130. There
are also additional fields 140 and 150 for other attributes. A new cost source
4
Appeal 2006-2678
Application 09/235,120

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
identifier data structure is assigned for each step in a multi-step job so that a
job having multiple constituent steps or a manufactured item having a
plurality of sub-parts or sub-assemblies may be assigned a corresponding
plurality of cost source identifier data structures (Specification p. 12). As
disclosed, the advantage of using the cost source identifier data structure of
the Appellants’ invention is that calculation of actual cost is carried out in
real time or near real time (Specification, p. 13).
Conway discloses a system for tracking the cost of medical procedures
by monitoring the movements of personnel and/or equipment and supplies
(col. 1, ll. 4-6). The system utilizes transponder tags 20 associated with each
person, each equipment and each supply (col. 2, ll. 1-2). A tag reader 28
communicates with each tag 20 as the tag 20 passes within proximity of the
tag reader 28 (col. 2, ll. 42-43). The tag reader 28 then supplies tag
information from the tag 20 to a computer which processes the information
(col. 2, ll. 46-47). The system is depicted in Figure 2 which illustrates how
the tag readers 28a, 28b, and 28c register the presence of the tags 20 on
equipment (2b for example), and people (22b and 23b for example) in
operating room 42. The information from the tag readers is used to
determine the cost of the procedure provided to the patient by accumulating
the labor cost of caregivers, rental cost of equipment used and cost of
supplies consumed, combined with any rental expenses associated with the
operating room 42 and any fixed equipment in the room (col. 6, ll. 7-11).
Conway does not disclose creating a cost source identifier data structure
and associating the cost source identifier data structure with a step carried
out while manufacturing the item or performing the service. Conway
5
Appeal 2006-2678
Application 09/235,120

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
discloses that the tags are read and the cost associated with the tagged person
or equipment is calculated by a computer.
Fahey discloses a system for industrial data acquisition and product
costing (col. 1, ll. 1-3). The system applies activity based costing to
products in product families to produce a detailed analysis of activity based
costs. Fahey discloses that all the costs associated with a particular
operation or product family are organized together. For example, in regard
to the Machine Shop, the costs of the production management operation are
aggregated together as well as the costs of the drill and mill activity center,
the turning center and the sheet metal center (col. 7, Table 1). Fahey does
not discloses creating a unique cost source identifier data structure and
associating a unique cost source identifier structure to each step carried out
while manufacturing the item or while performing the service.
Bone does not disclose creating a unique cost source identifier data
structure for each collected actual cost.

PRINCIPLES OF LAW
We initially note that the test for obviousness is what the combined
teachings of the references would have suggested to one of ordinary skill in
the art. See In re Kahn, 441 F.3d 977, 987-988, 78 USPQ2d 1329, 1336
(Fed. Cir. 2006); In re Young, 927 F.2d 588, 591, 18 USPQ2d 1089, 1091
(Fed. Cir. 1991) and In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 425, 208 USPQ 871, 881
(CCPA 1981).
6
Appeal 2006-2678
Application 09/235,120

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
DISCUSSION
We agree with the Appellants that Conway does not teach or suggest
creating a unique source cost identifier data structure for each collected
actual cost and associating a unique source cost identifier data structure for
each step carried out while manufacturing the item or while performing the
service. In addition, we have found that neither Bone nor Fahey cure this
deficiency of Conway. Therefore, we will not sustain the Examiner’s
rejection of claims 1 to 7, 9 to 12 and 14 to 27 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) .

DECISION
The decision of the Examiner is reversed. 11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
REVERSED

vsh

YOUNG LAW FIRM, P.C.
4370 ALPINE RD.
STE. 106
PORTOLA VALLEY CA 94028
7