Ex Parte 6947903 et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Sep 23, 2013

95000557 (P.T.A.B. Sep. 23, 2013)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE 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 APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE FIRST NAMED INVENTOR ATTORNEY DOCKET NO. CONFIRMATION NO. 95/000,557 07/16/2010 6947903 09449.0023 /2766.1001-007 4089 21005 7590 09/23/2013 HAMILTON, BROOK, SMITH & REYNOLDS, P.C. 530 VIRGINIA ROAD P.O. BOX 9133 CONCORD, MA 01742-9133 EXAMINER DOERRLER, WILLIAM CHARLES ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 3993 MAIL DATE DELIVERY MODE 09/23/2013 PAPER 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. PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07) UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE ____________________ BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD ____________________ SAP AMERICA, INC. Requestor, Cross-Appellant, Respondent v. ELCOMMERCE.COM, INC. Patent Owner, Appellant, Respondent ____________________ Appeal 2013-007281 Inter partes Reexamination 95/000,557 Patent US 6,947,903 C1 Technology Center 3900 ____________________ Before: DANIEL S. SONG, MEREDITH C. PETRAVICK, and WILLIAM V. SAINDON, Administrative Patent Judges. SAINDON, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL Appeal 2013-007281 Reexamination 95/000,557 US 6,947,903 C1 2 STATEMENT OF THE CASE Claims 1-55 are rejected and are the subject of the present appeal. Patent Owner appeals under 35 U.S.C. §§ 134(b) and 315(a) (2002) from the rejections of the claims as discussed infra. Requestor cross-appeals under 35 U.S.C. §§ 134(c) and 315(b) (2002) from the Examiner’s withdrawal as to claims 1-21 and 37 of rejections I-K, X, Y, AA-BB, EE, and FFFF- HHHHH. Cr. App. Br. Req. 6-9 1 ; RAN 90-119, 146-147. 2 We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. §§ 134 and 315. We AFFIRM the Examiner’s rejection of the appealed claims, and do not reach the issues raised in the Requestor’s cross-appeal. Case History US Patent 6,947,903 B1 (“’903 Patent”) was issued to Brian M. Perry on September 20, 2005. The ’903 Patent was the subject of ex parte reexamination 90/009,298, which confirmed the patentability of all claims without amendment and issued with a reexamination certificate on April 6, 2010. We have been apprised of the following judicial proceedings involving the ’903 Patent (Resp. Br. Req. 1; Resp. Br. PO 1): Title Case No. & Forum Notes elcommerce.com, Inc. v. SAP AG and SAP America, Inc. No. 2:07-cv-383-TJW (E.D. Tex.) Transferred to E.D. Pa., below 1 Requestor additionally cross-appealed the Examiner’s non-adoption based on no Substantial New Question of Patentability for rejections A, B, G, H, and WW (Cr. App. Br. Req. 10) but later withdrew the cross-appeal as to those rejections (Reb. Br. Req. 6). 2 Because the Examiner’s Answer mailed January 25, 2013 merely incorporates the Right to Appeal Notice (RAN) mailed March 9, 2012, we refer to RAN in this decision. Appeal 2013-007281 Reexamination 95/000,557 US 6,947,903 C1 3 elcommerce.com, Inc. v. SAP AG and SAP America, Inc. No. 2:09cv04458-JD (E.D. Pa) Final Judgment rendered 3 , appealed to Fed. Cir. elcommerce.com, Inc. v. SAP AG and SAP America, Inc. No. 2011-1369 (Fed. Cir.) Oral Hearing held 5/8/2012 We held an Oral Hearing with both parties present on September 11, 2013, the transcript of which will be entered into the electronic record in due course. The Claimed Subject Matter The disclosed invention generally relates to monitoring supply chain activity at various supply chain sites by taking whatever information is available, without having to rely on standardized computer systems or data formats at the sites. ’903 Patent, col. 1, ll. 61-64. As such, the disclosed invention pulls data from each of these separate systems and translates the data into a common format. Id., col. 1, l. 64 to col. 2, l. 6. Claims 1, 22, 37, 38, 50, 53, and 54 are independent. Claim 1, reproduced below, is illustrative of the claimed subject matter. 1. A method of monitoring supply chain activity, comprising: scanning for changed supply-related data at independent supply chain sites within the supply chain; extracting the supply-related data at the independent supply chain, the data being maintained in plural formats at the supply chain sites, where each of the supply chain sites represents an independent entity in the supply chain; 3 The judgment defined various terms of claims 1, 22, 37, 38, 50, 53, and 54 and declared claims 22, 25, and 37 indefinite for lack of corresponding structure as required by 35 U.S.C. § 112, sixth paragraph. 2011 WL 722267 (E.D. Pa.) (Order); 2011 WL 710487 (E.D. Pa) (Memorandum). Appeal 2013-007281 Reexamination 95/000,557 US 6,947,903 C1 4 translating the extracted data into a common format; uploading the extracted data from each supply chain site to a data collection site, the data collection site collecting the extracted data; and upon a request from a user associated with one of the supply chain sites, formatting, at the data collection site, a portion of the collected data, retrieved from one of the supply chain sites other than the site of the user, into one of a plurality of views, responsive to criteria selected by the user, for presentation to the user, the portion of formatted data being dependent on access rights granted to the user’s supply chain site, and publishing the formatted data view to the user's supply chain site; at the data collection site, monitoring inbound data from multiple supply chain sites; detecting a problem condition if there is a surplus or shortage in the collected data retrieved from at least one of the supply chain sites other than the site of the user; and responding to the problem condition by asserting an alert to the user, where the alert indicates a problem condition associated with at least one of the supply chain sites other than the site of the user. Rejections & Evidence Requestor initially proposed 122 rejections (A-RRRRR); Patent Owner appeals the Examiner’s adoption, in some form, of the following rejections 4 :  I, J, M, N, R, X, Z, AA, CC, and EE (“R/3 Obviousness Rejections”)  XX-III (“XHQ Obviousness Rejections”)  JJJ-EEEE (“Poirier Obviousness Rejections”)  FFFF-SSSS (“Praxis Obviousness Rejections”)  TTTT-BBBBB (“Bellini Obviousness Rejections”) 4 A full listing and the status of all rejections can be found at RAN pp. 3-14. Appeal 2013-007281 Reexamination 95/000,557 US 6,947,903 C1 5 App. Br. PO 8-16. Of the above rejections, the Poirier Obviousness Rejections address each claim of the ’903 Patent, and because our affirmance of these rejections is dispositive of the outcome of the appeal, we address only these rejections in our decision. The Examiner adopted the Poirier Obviousness Rejections as proposed, and incorporated by reference those rejections from the Request. See RAN 32-47; Req. 1019-1327 5 . The Poirier Obviousness Rejections are as follows: JJJ. Claims 1-55 as obvious over Poirier 6 and Devlin 7 . KKK. Claims 1-55 as obvious over Poirier, Devlin, and Kimball 8 . LLL. Claims 1-5 as obvious over Poirier, Devlin, and Widom 9 . MMM. Claims 1-5 as obvious over Poirier, Devlin, and Liu 10 . NNN. Claims 1-55 as obvious over Poirier, Devlin, and Salvo 11 . OOO. Claims 1-55 as obvious over Poirier, Devlin, and Brockman 12 . PPP. Claims 1-55 as obvious over Poirier, Devlin, and Anand 13 . QQQ. Claims 17, 25, 43, and 44 as obvious over Poirier, Devlin, and Notani 14 . RRR. Claims 1-55 as obvious over Poirier and Kimball. 5 Because the Examiner adopted and incorporated by reference the proposed rejections, our citations of the Examiner’s rejection will typically be to the Request. 6 Charles C. Poirier & Stephen E. Reiter, “Supply Chain Optimization” (Berrett-Koehler Pubs., Inc. 1996). 7 Barry Devlin, “Data Warehouse from Architecture to Implementation” (Cote et. al, eds. Addison-Wesley 1997). 8 Ralph Kimball, “The Data warehouse Toolkit” (Robert Elliot, ed. John Wiley & Sons, Inc. 1996). 9 Jennifer Widom, “Research Problems in Data Warehousing,” Proc. 4th Int’l Conf. on Information and Knowledge Mgmt, pp. 25-30 (1995). 10 Jixue Liu and Millist Vincent, “An Architecture for Data Warehouse Systems,” Proc. of IEE TENCON ’98, Global Connectivity in Energy, Computer, Communication and Control (IEEE Dec. 1998). 11 US 6,341,271 B1, iss. Jan. 22, 2002. 12 US 5,884,300, iss. Mar. 16, 1999. 13 US 5,721,903, iss. Feb. 24, 1998. 14 US 6,119,149, iss. Sep. 12, 2000. Appeal 2013-007281 Reexamination 95/000,557 US 6,947,903 C1 6 SSS. Claims 1-55 as obvious over Poirier, Kimball, and Salvo. TTT. Claims 1-55 as obvious over Poirier, Kimball, and Anand. UUU. Claims 1-55 as obvious over Poirier, Kimball, and Notani. VVV. Claims 1-55 as obvious over Poirier, Inmon 15 , and Anand. WWW. Claims 17, 25, 43, and 44 as obvious over Poirier, Inmon, Anand, and Notani. XXX. Claims 1-55 as obvious over Poirier, Inmon, and Devlin. YYY. Claims 17, 25, 43, and 44 as obvious over Poirier, Inmon, and Devlin, and Notani. ZZZ. Claims 1-55 as obvious over Poirier, Inmon, and Salvo. AAAA. Claims 17, 25, 43, and 44 as obvious over Poirier, Inmon, Salvo, and Notani. BBBB. Claims 1-55 as obvious over Poirier, Widom, and Anand. CCCC. Claims 17, 25, 43, and 44 as obvious over Poirier, Widom, Anand, and Notani. DDDD. Claims 1-55 as obvious over Poirier, Liu, and Anand EEEE. Claims 17, 25, 43, and 44 as obvious over Poirier, Liu, Anand, and Notani. OPINION Poirier Obviousness Rejections We have reviewed the Poirier Obviousness Rejections and adopt the findings and conclusions therein as our own. In addition, we consider the Examiner’s response (RAN 141-143, 151) and Requestor’s comments (Resp. Br. Req. 53-63) sufficient to rebut Patent Owner’s contentions of error (App. Br. PO 94-115). What follows, therefore, is an overview of the most relevant art and rejections, and our elaboration on a few issues. We first turn to the most discussed prior art. 15 William H. Inmon, Building the Data Warehouse, (John Wiley & Sons, Inc. 1992, 1993). Appeal 2013-007281 Reexamination 95/000,557 US 6,947,903 C1 7 Prior Art Poirier: Supply Chain Monitoring Using a Central Data Warehouse 16 The Poirier reference is a book for those interested in “learning how to … create a more effective supply chain system.” Poirier, xiii. Poirier describes that successful leaders in this effort are “[b]uilding alliances with suppliers … to work out improvements to forecasting, order fulfillment, planning, scheduling …, and inventory control” and “[l]ooking to the information technology function to provide links across the full supply chain.” Id. at 19-20. Poirier’s idea of building alliances using information technology as a link is embodied in a central data warehouse that collects information among the independent supply chain sites. Id. at 58 (“This data warehouse is absolutely critical to the success of the inter-enterprise network system.”). This system is exemplified in Figure 3.1 of Poirier: Figure 3.1 of Poirier depicts an inter-enterprise supply chain model in which suppliers, plants, distributors, and retailers share inventory, promotional, 16 The Examiner’s rejections typically include citations to additional portions of the references. Our citations to the references in this section of the opinion are exemplary and not intended to suggest those other citations are not as relevant. Appeal 2013-007281 Reexamination 95/000,557 US 6,947,903 C1 8 forecast, and sale data using a common supply chain data management system. Poirier monitors supply chain activity, gathering required information and checking for certain conditions that may impact the supply chain. Poirier 56, fig. 3.1, and 58 (discussing item “trigger” levels monitored by the database “to meet consumption demands,” i.e., to prevent shortages); see also Req. 1022-23. The data may need to be translated from various proprietary source formats. Poirier 58 (the information “must be accessible . . . in a compatible format” and “any necessary translations must be made in terms of products, sku’s or item-specific information”), and 65; see also Req. 1028. Poirier describes monitoring incoming data and detecting problem conditions, generating an alert if necessary. Poirier 58, 60 (“trigger” levels), and 65 (discussing “trigger” of activities based on monitoring the information shared between the independent entities); see also Req. 1036. Devlin: Data Warehouse Guidebook The Devlin reference is an in-depth guidebook intended for information systems personnel to “understand, design, and build a data warehouse.” Devlin 2. Devlin describes various methods for capturing and moving data from a data source to a data warehouse. Devlin 177-194 (discussing various considerations and techniques when capturing data from various data sources, including trigger capture, log capture, and file comparison capture), and 147, figure 7-10 (depicting the logical architecture of the data warehouse); see also Req. 890-891, 893, 896. This often requires a data format change. Devlin 205 (discussing transformation of data formats); see also Req. 893-95. Devlin describes access control to the Appeal 2013-007281 Reexamination 95/000,557 US 6,947,903 C1 9 database (Devlin 148, “security is required to control access to and use of the data it contains” and 398, discussing hierarchical access rules; see also Req. 900) as well as the provision of views published in various formats (Devlin 261-62, discussing the business information interface, which “provides the function needed to select data, perform any required analysis, store the results …, and produce reports in any required format,” and 267, “structuring and presentation function”; see also Req. 899-900). Lastly, Devlin describes monitoring inbound data from sites and alerting a user to a detected problem condition. Devlin 267, “procedures that are automatically triggered when certain events or conditions occur”; see also Req. 901-02, 903-04. Kimball: Data Warehouse Guidebook The Kimball reference is similar to Devlin, in that it is a guidebook intended for information systems personnel involved with data warehouses. Kimball, xv. Because the teachings of Kimball are largely cumulative to those of Devlin, we need not discuss the details of Kimball. See also Req. 983-1019. Inmon: Data Warehouse Guidebook The Inmon reference is similar to Devlin, in that it is a guidebook intended for system builders “in a modern data processing environment.” Inmon, xi. Because the teachings of Inmon are largely cumulative to those of Devlin, we need not discuss the details of Inmon. See also Req. 1136- 1155. Widom: Data Warehouse Architecture The Widom reference is an academic paper proposing a data warehousing architecture. Data from various heterogeneous information Appeal 2013-007281 Reexamination 95/000,557 US 6,947,903 C1 10 sources are extracted, translated, and filtered for storage in a central repository. Widom 25. A wrapper/monitor component is associated with a data source and will translate formats and automatically detect changes of interest. Id. at 26 (“the wrapper component . . . is responsible for translating information from the native format . . . while the monitor is responsible for automatically detecting changes of interest in the source data and reporting them to the integrator”) and 27 (discussing translation and change detection in further detail). An integrator collects the data from the wrapper/monitor and sends the data to the data warehouse. Id. at 26. Figure 1 of Widom, reproduced below, graphically depicts the information source, wrapper/monitor, integrator, and data warehouse relationship just described. The remaining references are not relied upon as substantially as the above references. We will discuss the relevant disclosures of the other secondary references as necessary. Overview of the Poirier Obviousness Rejections The Poirier Obviousness rejections each follow a similar pattern: Poirier is found to describe the limitation, or if not, or to the extent further details are required, these details are provided by one or more other Appeal 2013-007281 Reexamination 95/000,557 US 6,947,903 C1 11 references (Devlin, Widom, Inmon, or Kimball, primarily). The rejections of the independent claim 1, for example, address each limitation and provide a detailed analysis of the teachings of Poirier and the secondary references, the manner in which they are combined, and a reasoned explanation for that combination. The claims, therefore, are addressed using a combination of teachings from the references. Poirier and Devlin The Examiner’s rejections involving Poirier and Devlin rely on Poirier to teach an “inter-enterprise supply chain system utilizing a central data warehouse to store supply chain information.” Req. 1019. In addition, the Examiner finds that Poirier acknowledges that the “data warehouse is absolutely critical to the success of the interenterprise network system.” Id. at 1020. Accordingly, the Examiner finds that one of ordinary skill in the art would look to well-known data warehousing features such as those disclosed in Devlin. Id. The Examiner notes that Devlin likewise recognizes the importance of a data warehouse to share data in inter-enterprise environments. Id. (citing Devlin 403, “Inter-enterprise data warehouses”). Accordingly, in addition to the suggestions to combine features of the supply chain monitoring system of Poirier with the data warehousing system of Devlin found in each reference, the Examiner concludes that such combinations are also merely the combination of familiar elements according to known methods. Id. (citing KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 401 (2007) (“The combination of familiar elements according to known methods is likely to be obvious”); see also KSR at 417 (“if a technique has been used to improve one device, and a person of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that it would improve similar devices in the Appeal 2013-007281 Reexamination 95/000,557 US 6,947,903 C1 12 same way, using the technique is obvious unless its actual application is beyond his or her skill”). This general rationale to combine is bolstered in each rejection when the Examiner discusses the combination as it pertains to a particular limitation. As such, the Examiner has set forth a general reason to combine the teachings of the references as well as reasons to combine the teachings of the references in view of the particular modifications proposed. As explained in further detail below, Patent Owner only challenges the reason to combine at the general level; a challenge of each particular modification is not cogently made. Poirier and Kimball The Examiner finds that Kimball teaches that it is more difficult to collect data in a value chain when the entities therein are separate businesses. Req. 1088 (citing Kimball 83). Kimball discusses the “attraction of assembling a value chain of databases.” Kimball 83. The Examiner thus finds explicit motivation to combine the Kimball database with Poirier’s centralized data warehouse for independent entities, to facilitate Poirier’s above-noted need for a data warehouse and to solve Kimball’s problem of assembling the databases of separate entities. See Req. 1088. In addition, the Examiner notes that using the data warehousing techniques of Kimball is merely the combination of familiar elements according to known methods (i.e., using a known data warehouse as called for in Poirier). Id. Poirier and Inmon/Widom/Liu/Anand In general, Inmon, Widom, Liu, and Anand teach data warehousing techniques, and the Examiner’s reason to modify Poirier’s teachings is because Poirier emphasizes the need for a data warehouse and these Appeal 2013-007281 Reexamination 95/000,557 US 6,947,903 C1 13 references provide such a data warehouse. See Req. 1134-35 (Inmon), 1254- 1255 (Widom/Anand), and 1290-1291 (Liu/Anand). Accordingly, the Examiner asserts that such a combination is merely the combination of familiar elements according to known methods. Patent Owner’s Contentions against the Poirier Obviousness Rejections Patent Owner begins by arguing Poirier in isolation (App. Br. PO 96- 109), then argues the secondary references in isolation (id. at 109-113), and then argues the rationales in isolation (id. at 113-114). In addressing Poirier, Patent Owner argues independent claims 1 and 37 as a group, of which claim 1 will be representative, and then separately argues independent claims 22, 38, 50, 53, and 54. Id. at 96-109. Patent Owner does not make separate arguments with respect to the various Poirier Obviousness Rejections when addressing any given claim. We will address the independent claims first, and then address the dependent claims. Claim 1 As pointed out by Requestor, Patent Owner’s contentions do not address the actual rejections but rather focus on the individual references. Resp. Br. Req. 55. Although the 22 Poirier Obviousness Rejections include 9 other references, these secondary references are argued in isolation. See App. Br. PO 109-113. It is well-settled that arguing references in isolation is ineffective in establishing non-obviousness when the rejection is based on combination of the teachings of the references. See, e.g., In re Merck & Co. Inc., 800 F.2d 1091, 1097 (Fed. Cir. 1986). The Examiner’s findings with respect to claim 1 and each method step therein rely on a combination of teachings. See Req. 1021-1038 (Poirier/Devlin), 1054-1059 (Poirier/Devlin/Kimball), 1062-1065 (Poirier/Devlin/Widom), 1066-1069 Appeal 2013-007281 Reexamination 95/000,557 US 6,947,903 C1 14 (Poirier/Devlin/Liu), 1071-1074 (Poirier/Devlin/Salvo), 1076-1078 (Poirier/Devlin/Brockman), 1080-1084 (Poirier/Devlin/Anand), 1089-1106 (Poirier/Kimball), 1121-1124 (Poirier/Kimball/Salvo), 1126-1130 (Poirier/Kimball/Anand), 1135-1155 (Poirier/Inmon/Anand), 1173-1199 (Poirier/Inmon/Devlin), 1220-1237 (Poirier/Inmon/Salvo), 1255-1273 (Poirier/Widom/Anand), and 1291-1310 (Poirier/Liu/Anand); see also Exhibit CC5 1-122 (claim chart for Poirier rejections). Patent Owner does not cogently address the limitations of claim 1 with respect to these proposed combinations of the prior art. Instead, Patent Owner routinely criticizes Poirier for not appreciating the “inventive concept.” See, e.g., App. Br. PO 98, 99, 102, 104. However, the Supreme Court has held that it is error to “hold[] that courts and patent examiners should look only to the problem the patentee was trying to solve.” KSR, 550 U.S. at 420; see also Kalman v. Kimberly-Clark Corp., 713 F.2d 760, 772 (Fed. Cir. 1983). Instead, what is relevant is whether the rejection shows that the claimed subject matter would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art. In this case, even if Poirier did not appreciate a particular limitation in the exact manner claimed, the Examiner has proposed several findings with respect to the secondary references to teach various limitations. As such, Patent Owner’s contention that Poirier does not appreciate the “inventive concept” does not apprise us of error in the Examiner’s rejections, as it does not address the particular rejections. To the extent Patent Owner discusses any particular limitation in the claim, Patent Owner merely asserts that Poirier does not teach the limitation. See, e.g., App. Br. PO 97 (first full paragraph, listing various claim limitations and benefits thereof, and concluding “This arrangement of Appeal 2013-007281 Reexamination 95/000,557 US 6,947,903 C1 15 features used to create a system of monitoring independent sites is not taught by Poirier”). In addition to the above-noted problems with arguing references in isolation, Patent Owner is merely pointing out claim limitations and asserting the prior art does not teach them, without explaining what gaps exist between the claims and the art underpinning the rejections of those claims. See In re Jung, 637 F.3d 1356, 1365 (Fed. Cir. 2011); In re Lovin, 652 F.3d 1349 (Fed. Cir. 2011). While it is true the prior art rejections must address each claim limitation, “this is not an ipsissimis verbis test.” In re Bond 910 F.2d 831, 832 (Fed. Cir. 1990). As such, merely identifying that the exact language is not found in the references verbatim is not persuasive. In view of the Examiner’s extensive findings regarding Poirier and the secondary references, Patent Owner’s allegations fail to apprise us of reversible error in the factual findings that underpin the rejections of claim 1, or the conclusions relying thereon. For these reasons, the vast majority of Patent Owner’s contentions regarding claim 1 fail. The combination of the Examiner’s and Requestor’s responses, as noted above, generally refutes Patent Owner’s positions with respect to the Poirier Obviousness Rejections. The only issue we separately address with respect to Poirier is Patent Owner’s contention that Poirier teaches away from the claimed solution. See, e.g., App. Br. PO 95-96. Does Poirier Teach Away from the Claimed Solution? Patent Owner contends that Poirier “teaches away from the claimed solution” because it discloses a method that “requires business process [re]engineering” while the claimed solution “helps avoid such business process [re]engineering.” App. Br. PO 96. Appeal 2013-007281 Reexamination 95/000,557 US 6,947,903 C1 16 When considering a “teaching away” argument “the nature of the teaching is highly relevant.” In re Gurley, 27 F.3d 551, 553 (Fed. Cir. 1994). Teaching away requires a reference to actually criticize, discredit, or discourage investigation into the claimed solution, or otherwise to lead a person in a divergent direction from the path taken by the inventor. In re Fulton, 391 F.3d 1195, 1201 (Fed. Cir. 2004). If there are tradeoffs involved, regarding features, costs, manufacturability, or the like, such do not necessarily prevent the proposed combination. See Medichem, S.A. v. Rolabo, S.L., 437 F.3d 1157, 1165 (Fed. Cir. 2006) (“a given course of action often has simultaneous advantages and disadvantages, and this does not necessarily obviate motivation to combine.”); Winner Int'l Royalty Corp. v. Wang, 202 F.3d 1340, 1349 n.8 (Fed. Cir. 2000) (“The fact that the motivating benefit comes at the expense of another benefit, however, should not nullify its use as a basis to modify the disclosure of one reference with the teachings of another. Instead, the benefits, both lost and gained, should be weighed against one another.”). In this case, we do not find Poirier to teach away from the claimed invention. First, Patent Owner has not explained how the claimed invention precludes business process reengineering, as we see no such limitation in the claims. See also Resp. Br. Req. 55. Second, as the Examiner found, Poirier does teach accessing information using terms compatible with each internal system (i.e., using the existing system without the reengineering Patent Owner alleges). RAN 142 (“the system ‘demands that the information be accessed in terms compatible with each user’s internal information system.’”) (citing Poirier 65). Accordingly, practicing the teachings of Poirier does not necessitate a retooling of back end data systems, as Patent Appeal 2013-007281 Reexamination 95/000,557 US 6,947,903 C1 17 Owner alleges. See App. Br. PO 96. Third, the Examiner’s rejections include teachings from other references, including, for example, Devlin and Widom, which leave back end data formats intact by transforming the data received therefrom (i.e., not changing the data at the source but rather whatever data is received). See, e.g., Devlin 122 (“converts data as received from the source”) (emphasis added); Widom 26 (“[t]he wrapper component . . . is responsible for translating information from the native format of the source into the format and data model used by the warehousing system”). Fourth, we see no practical difference between “business process reengineering” and practicing the invention in the ’903 Patent. In essence, “business process reengineering” is merely a label for something that happens all the time - process improvement. See Poirier 130. Reviewing these passages of Poirier, it does not appear that business process reengineering means changing the way a business stores its information (although it could). Instead, it could be a change to a way the business shares its information with suppliers. As such, the ’903 Patent’s invention is itself business process reengineering, by changing the process businesses use to share information; such information, and access thereto, being now provided by the independent businesses to the data collection site. Accordingly, in view of the above, Poirier does not teach away from the invention claimed. Appeal 2013-007281 Reexamination 95/000,557 US 6,947,903 C1 18 Secondary References Used in Rejecting Claim 1 Patent Owner addresses the secondary references in isolation. App. Br. PO 109-113. We address Patent Owner’s discussion of each in turn. Devlin As with Poirier, Patent Owner argues Devlin in isolation. App. Br. PO 109. Patent Owner does not separately address the various rejections in which Poirier and Devlin are utilized in combination. Instead, Patent Owner sets forth arguments regarding Devlin (1) not being directed to a supply chain and (2) teaching away. Patent Owner first argues that Devlin’s inter-enterprise data warehouse is “unrelated” to the claimed system of “monitoring independent supply chain sites” or “supply chain monitoring.” App. Br. PO 109. These arguments are unpersuasive because the Examiner relies on Poirier to teach the supply chain monitoring aspects of the claim. See, e.g., Req. 1022-21 (in Poirier, an inter-enterprise “data warehouse can be monitored in order to ensure proper inventory levels, where suppliers are alerted in the event . . . [of] a shortage.”); see also Poirier, fig. 3.1 (depicting the monitoring of a supply chain). In our overview of Devlin above, we explained how Devlin’s teachings are applied with respect to gathering the data, translating, and storing it, for example, rather than specifically the context in which the data is gathered, etc., which is instead taught by Poirier. Accordingly, Patent Owner is arguing the references in isolation rather than in view of the proposed combinations. Patent Owner next alleges that Devlin teaches away from inter- enterprise data warehouses because, on that subject, Devlin explains that there are “issues” and “significant legal and competitive considerations” Appeal 2013-007281 Reexamination 95/000,557 US 6,947,903 C1 19 with implementation. App. Br. PO 109. The portion of Devlin discussed by Patent Owner is in the chapter called “Looking to the future,” which suggests that “the opportunity exists to treat internal [data warehouses] and those in other companies as peers.” Devlin 403. Devlin cautions that such data sharing has “significant legal and competitive considerations” and that, due to differences in data warehouses, “there must exist a defined and automated transformation process between the different parts.” Id. Devlin thus concludes, “inter-enterprise data warehouses will be relatively uncommon, except between those companies who share a substantial and long-term cooperative business arrangement.” Id. The Examiner finds no such teaching away in these passages and instead characterizes these passages as “cautions.” RAN 139. The Examiner also explains that Devlin is merely explaining that “the parties may not desire all information to be shared” and finds that supply chains have “a substantial and long-term cooperative business arrangement.” Id. at 32. Requestor comments that “[s]imply because Devlin identifies certain challenges associated with inter-enterprise data warehouses does not mean that they are discouraged.” Resp. Br. Req. 22 (cited id. at 57). We do not find Devlin to teach away from the proposed combination. First, Poirier specifically requests a data warehouse. Poirier 58 (a “data warehouse is absolutely critical to the success of the interenterprise network system [herein]”). Second, the forward-looking passage in Devlin devoted to inter-enterprise data warehousing merely suggests potential pitfalls. The nature of these pitfalls is with respect to legal and competitive reasons, not technical. See RAN 32; see also Medichem, 437 F.3d at 1165; Winner Int'l Royalty Corp, 202 F.3d at n.8. Devlin even suggests the answer: sharing Appeal 2013-007281 Reexamination 95/000,557 US 6,947,903 C1 20 data works best between those with committed business relationships. See Devlin 403; RAN 32. Supply chains would be recognized by one of ordinary skill as an example of a committed business relationship. See, e.g., RAN 32 (supply chains include “a substantial and long-term cooperative business arrangement”); Poirier 19 (describing successful leaders in supply chain management as “[b]uilding alliances with suppliers”). Naturally, any business must consider the legal and competitive implications of sharing their information. However, we see no compelling reason in the record before us to find that such considerations are preclusive. Indeed, given the advantages of sharing information with suppliers (e.g., scheduling, paperwork), these cautions appear to be outweighed by the advantages. Accordingly, we do not find Devlin to discredit any teaching of Poirier nor to teach away from inter-enterprise data warehouses, supply chain monitoring, or the claimed invention. In view of the above, Patent Owner has not apprised us of an error in the Poirier Obviousness Rejections with respect to Devlin. Salvo Patent Owner argues that Salvo “serves a single entity” and as such does not teach various concepts enumerated thereafter. App. Br. PO 110. Patent Owner merely sets out various features without reference to any particular rejections or findings based on Salvo. See also, e.g., RAN 34-35 (“PO has not supplied any information that shows the [findings regarding the claim limitations] to be misrepresented”). In addition, Salvo’s teachings are in combination with Poirier, which explicitly teaches multiple entities. Poirier 56 (fig. 3.1). Accordingly, Patent Owner does not apprise us of an error in the Poirier Obviousness Rejections with respect to Salvo. Appeal 2013-007281 Reexamination 95/000,557 US 6,947,903 C1 21 Kimball Patent Owner argues that “Kimball does not discuss anything about supply chains.” App. Br. PO 110. This argument does not apprise us of error in the Examiner’s extensive findings with respect to Kimball, as Poirier teaches supply chains, while Kimball is used to teach specific data warehousing techniques. See, e.g., RAN 37 (“PO has not specifically stated an error in the features described [in the rejection]”). Anand Patent Owner argues that “Anand does not disclose a system that operates across multiple independent supply chain entities.” App. Br. PO 110. However, as we noted above, the Examiner’s rejection relies on Poirier to teach this feature. See also RAN 36 (“PO does not give a reason why it is not obvious to implement the data warehousing of Devlin and Anand across independent supply chain sites as taught by Poirier”). Accordingly, this argument does not apprise us of an error in the Poirier Obviousness Rejections with respect to Ananad. Brockman Patent Owner argues that Brockman “speaks nothing of the inventive extraction, monitoring or of the data collection site/center.” App. Br. PO 111. The Examiner relies on Brockman for teachings regarding monitoring, detecting, and alerts, but not necessarily for the entire inventive concept (i.e., not for all aspects of the claim limitations). See also RAN 35 (“The rejection relies upon Brockman for the specifics of the monitoring, detecting and alerting functions. These specifics are combined with the teaching of Poirier of deriving data from independent supply chain sites.”). Appeal 2013-007281 Reexamination 95/000,557 US 6,947,903 C1 22 Accordingly, this argument is does not apprise us of an error in the Poirier Obviousness Rejections with respect to Brockman. Inmon and Liu Patent Owner argues that “[n]either of these reference[s] relate to the field of supply chain monitoring.” App. Br. PO 111. However, as the Examiner found, Inmon and Liu are analogous art because Inmon and Liu’s data storage techniques are useful to store supply chain information. RAN 143. Accordingly, Patent Owner’s argument does not apprise us of an error in the Poirier Obviousness Rejections with respect to Inmon or Liu. Rationales for Combinations Used in Rejecting Claim 1 Patent Owner challenges the rationales of all rejections of all claims over all references together. App. Br. PO 114. However, Patent Owner does not persuasively point to an error with respect to the specific rationales for the combinations. Instead, Patent Owner states that “[i]t is not evident which elements in the asserted ‘combination’ are being drawn from which reference or how such elements are being combined.” Id. However, this statement is only with respect to the claim charts (Exhibit CC5). See id. Patent Owner does not consider the fact that the rejections are explained in detail within the portions of the Request adopted by the Examiner, and the claim charts are referenced and the proposed combinations adequately explained therein. Accordingly, we are not apprised of error in the Examiner’s rationales for the proposed combinations. Conclusion for Claim 1 For the reasons above, we are not apprised of error in the Examiner’s rejection of claim 1 in the Poirier Obviousness Rejections. Claim 37 falls therewith. Appeal 2013-007281 Reexamination 95/000,557 US 6,947,903 C1 23 Conclusion for the Remaining Independent Claims Patent Owner’s arguments with respect to the remaining independent claims are similar and, as with claim 1, directed to Poirier in isolation. As we discussed above, arguments in isolation are not persuasive when the rejection is based on a combination of teachings of references. Patent Owner’s contentions are thus unpersuasive for reasons similar to those expressed above. Accordingly, we are not apprised of error in the Examiner’s rejections of the remaining independent claims rejected over Poirier and one or more secondary references. Conclusion for the Dependent Claims Patent Owner only separately argues claim 4; the remaining dependent claims stand or fall therewith, in their respective rejections. Patent Owner’s argument for claim 4 is that Poirier does not disclose “the external sites are scanned at regular intervals.” App. Br. PO 115. However, the Examiner relied on Devlin, Kimball, Inmon, Widom, and Liu for this feature. Req. 1041, 1108, 1158, 1202, 1240, 1276, 1313. As such, this argument is not persuasive. Patent Owner also argues that Poirier teaches away, but this argument is not persuasive for the reasons set forth above. Id. We are not apprised of error in claim 4; the remaining dependents fall therewith. Conclusion for the Poirier Obviousness Rejections In summary, we sustain the Examiner’s Poirier Obviousness Rejections (JJJ-EEEE), which demonstrate the obviousness of the subject matter of claims 1-55. Appeal 2013-007281 Reexamination 95/000,557 US 6,947,903 C1 24 Remaining Obviousness Rejections The Poirier Obviousness Rejections demonstrate the obviousness of the subject matter of each claim in the ’903 Patent. Thus, we need not reach the remaining rejections because they are cumulative. Requester’s Cross-Appeal Because we have affirmed multiple rejections covering each claim of the ’903 Patent, we do not address the cross-appeal because it merely seeks to add cumulative rejections. See Cr. App. Br. 6-9. DECISION For the above reasons, we AFFIRM the Examiner’s decision regarding claims 1-55. Requests for extensions of time in this inter partes reexamination proceeding are governed by 37 C.F.R. § 1.956. AFFIRMED Patent Owner: HAMILTON, BROOK, SMITH & REYNOLDS, P.c. 530 VIRGINIA ROAD P.O. BOX 9133 CONCORD, MA 01742-9133 Third Party Requester: FINNEGAN, HENDERSON, FARABOW, GARRETT & DUNNER, LL 901 NEW YORK AVENUE, NW WASHINGTON, DC 20001