Ex Parte Babar et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

May 5, 2016

12966154 (P.T.A.B. May. 5, 2016)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE
12/966,154 12/13/2010
26890 7590 05/09/2016
JAMES M, STOVER
TERADATA US, INC.
10000 INNOVATION DRIVE
DAYTON, OH 45342
FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
Ziauddin Babar
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.
20624 8216
EXAMINER
CHEIN, ALLEN C
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
3627
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
05/09/2016 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):
michelle. boldman @teradata.com
jam es.stover@teradata.com
td.uspto@outlook.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte ZIAUDDIN BABAR, BLAZIMIR RADOVIC,
and EJAZ HAIDER
Appeal2014-002524 1
Application 12/966, 154 2
Technology Center 3600
Before HUBERT C. LORIN, NINA L. MEDLOCK, and
TARA L. HUTCHINGS, Administrative Patent Judges.
MEDLOCK, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Appellants appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Examiner's final
rejection of claims 1-12. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b ).
We AFFIRM-IN-PART.
1 Our decision references Appellants' Appeal Brief ("Br.," filed August 14,
2013) and the Examiner's Answer ("Ans.," mailed October 2, 2013), and
Final Office Action ("Final Act.," mailed February 14, 2013).
2 Appellants identify Teradata US, Incorporated as the real party in interest.
Br. 2.
Appeal2014-002524
Application 12/966, 154
CLAIMED fNVENTION
Appellants' claimed invention "relates to methods and systems for
distributing the remaining inventory of a replaced or discontinued product at
a distribution center or warehouse" (Spec. 1, 11. 8-10).
Claim 1, reproduced below, is illustrative of the subject matter on
appeal:
1. A computer-implemented method for distributing
inventory of a discontinued product from a distribution center to
a plurality of stores, the method comprising the steps of:
receiving, by a computer, from each one of said plurality
of stores a replacing product store order quantity for a replacing
product, said replacing product being a replacement for said
discontinued product;
when said distribution center contains an inventory of said
discontinued product, for each one of said plurality of stores,
allocating, by said computer, a discontinued product store order
quantity for said discontinued product not to exceed said
replacing product store order quantity; and
for each one of said plurality of stores, subtracting, by said
computer, the replaced product store order quantity from said
replacing product store order quantity to determine an updated
replacing product store order quantity.
2
Appeal2014-002524
Application 12/966, 154
REJECTIONS
Claims 1-3 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 112, second paragraph, as
indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject
matter that Appellants regard as the invention. 3
Claims 1, 5, and 9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
unpatentable over Knipfer (US 2010/0042516 Al, pub. Feb. 18, 2010),
Robinson (US 8,370,271 Bl, iss. Feb. 5, 2013) and Todd Baur, My first
experience on a Mac Pro, Aug. 24, 2006, available at
http://gigaom.com/ apple/my-first-experience-on-a-mac-pro/ (hereinafter
"Baur").
Claims 2, 6, and 10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
unpatentable over Knipfer, Robinson, Baur, and Appellants' Admitted Prior
Art (hereinafter "AAPA").
Claims 3, 7, and 11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
unpatentable over Knipfer, Robinson, Baur, and Huber-Buschbeck
(US 7,752,087 B2, iss. July 6, 2010).
Claims 4, 8, and 12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
unpatentable over Knipfer, Robinson, Baur, and Bishop
(US 2008/0086392 Al, pub. Apr. 10, 2008).
3 We treat the Examiner's failure to include dependent claims 2 and 3
among the claims rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 112, second paragraph, as an
oversight inasmuch as claims 2 and 3 depend from claim 1.
3
Appeal2014-002524
Application 12/966, 154
ANALYSIS
Indefiniteness
In rejecting claim 1 under 35 U.S.C. § 112, second paragraph, the
Examiner finds that the phrase, "the replaced product store order," as recited
in claim 1, lacks antecedent basis in that Appellants have amended the claim
to recite "discontinued" rather than "replaced" in all other instances (Final
Act. 3).
Appellants do not present any response to the Examiner's rejection.
Therefore, we summarily sustain the rejection of claims 1-3 under 35 U.S.C.
§ 112, second paragraph.
For purposes of this appeal, we interpret the phrase, "the replaced
product store order," as "the discontinued product store order."
Obviousness
Independent claim 1
We are persuaded by Appellants' argument that the Examiner erred in
rejecting independent claim 1 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) because none of the
cited references discloses or suggests a method for distributing inventory of
a discontinued product from a distribution center to a plurality of stores
where the method comprises, inter alia, "allocating [to each of the plurality
of stores] ... a ... quantity [of] said discontinued product not to exceed said
replacing product store order quantity [received from each of the stores for a
replacing product that is a replacement for the discontinued product]," as
recited in claim 1 (Br. 7-9). The Examiner cites Knipfer as disclosing the
argued limitation (Final Act. 5---6 (citing Knipfer, Abstract)). However, we
agree with Appellants that the method recited in claim 1 is materially
different from the process disclosed in Knipfer.
4
Appeal2014-002524
Application 12/966, 154
Rather than being concerned with distributing the remaining inventory
of a discontinued product to a plurality of stores, Knipfer is concerned with
preventing unnecessary and undesirable stoppages in the manufacturing
process - stoppages that may be required when any of a group of first parts
needed to fulfill a product order are not available in current inventory
stock - by substituting a second equivalent group of parts for the first group
of parts. Knipfer, thus, discloses a method for enabling sets of parts to be
interchanged, as needed, to meet production demands (id. i-f48) - a process
materially different from "allocating [to each of the plurality of stores] ... a
... quantity [of] said discontinued product not to exceed said replacing
product store order quantity [received from each of the stores for a replacing
product that is a replacement for the discontinued product]," as recited in
claim 1.
Knipfer discloses an exemplary scenario in paragraph 43 in which
1200 product orders are received at Time 1; these orders are broken down
into parts based on a first bill of materials (BO Ml), and production begins.
At Time 2, the manufacturing system creates a second bill of materials
(BOMl ')based on a future engineering break-in for BOMl, and sets a
cutover date based on estimated future order load and inventory stock to use
up the inventory stock for parts to be changed to prevent excess inventory
(Knipfer i143). At Time 3 (after the cutover date) when new orders are
being processed using BOMl ',the manufacturing system still has orders
with BOMl in progress from Time 1, but only enough inventory stock to
fulfill a portion of the orders with the parts specified in BO Ml (id.).
Knipfer discloses that consequently, with "existing manufacturing
processes," at Time 4, the manufacturing system places the orders with
5
Appeal2014-002524
Application 12/966, 154
BOMI, that are not covered by the inventory stock, on hold (production
stops) and alters these orders based on the part content specified in BOMl'
(id.). Knipfer discloses that this stoppage negatively impacts cycle-time and
customer shipments, and can potentially result in lost revenue (id.). And
Knipfer further discloses that in situations where there is not a one-to-one
match between parts on the current and previous version of the bill of
material or where a technical requirement exists that the entire group of parts
must all match the current version or all match the previous version of the
bill of material, the engineering cutover date can create excess stock that
must either be reworked or scrapped (id. f 44).
In paragraph 45, Knipfer characterizes its group substitution
mechanism as a solution to the problem of determining how to substitute a
new group of parts in an order comprising an old part order structure
(e.g., BO Ml), how to use up excess inventory stock for old orders when all
orders currently have the new part order structure, and how to allow part
substitutions to be made within only a specified subset of the order. Knipfer,
thus, discloses that the group substitution mechanism allows, during product
manufacturing, part substitutions to be made among sets of parts, which may
be equal or unequal in size, 4 and further discloses that this group substitution
mechanism "automates the engineering change cutover process to prevent
4 Knipfer discloses that part substitution is an industry standard practice,
and that, in existing systems, part substitution allows a part in a product
being manufactured to be substituted with another equivalent part, i.e., a
one-for-one part replacement; however, this one-for-one part substitution is
insufficient when a change in the BOM for a product order specifies that a
set of two parts be substituted with a set of three equivalent parts (or vice
versa) (Knipfer i-f 41 ).
6
Appeal2014-002524
Application 12/966, 154
stoppages in the manufacturing process while enabling sets of parts to be
interchanged as needed to meet production demands, and significantly
reduces cost to rework or scrap old inventory" (id. f 45). In other words, the
group substitution mechanism allows sets of parts specified in BO Ml and
sets of parts specified in BO Ml' to be interchanged as needed (i.e., when
there is insufficient inventory stock to fulfill the orders with the parts
specified in BOMl or in BOMl ')to meet production demands (see also
id. ii 48).
In applying Knipfer to the claim language, the Examiner interprets the
"interchangeable parts," e.g., the parts specified in new BO Ml', to read on
"replacing/replaced products," as recited in claim 1 (Final Act. 4). And the
Examiner "interprets 'old inventory,' [e.g., the parts specified in the old
BOMl] to read on discontinued product" (id.). Yet the difficulty with the
Examiner's analysis is that the order received in Knipfer is for a component,
i.e., a product, and not for a quantity of the individual parts specified in
BOMl ',i.e., a "replacing product store order quantity," which the
Examiner's mapping requires. We also find nothing in the cited portions of
Knipfer, whether considered alone or in combination with Robinson and
Baur, that discloses or suggests allocating/distributing a quantity of the "old
inventory," i.e., "a discontinued product store order quantity for said
discontinued product," to another entity, let alone allocating a quantity of old
inventory not to exceed an order received for a quantity of the individual
parts specified in BOMl ',i.e., a "replacing product store order quantity."
Yet that is exactly what the Examiner's mapping requires.
In view of the foregoing, we do not sustain the Examiner's rejection
of independent claim 1under35 U.S.C. § 103(a).
7
Appeal2014-002524
Application 12/966, 154
Independent claims 5 and 9
Independent claims 5 and 9 include language substantially similar to
the language of claim 1 and stand rejected based on the same rationale
applied in rejecting claim 1 (Final Act. 7). Therefore, we do not sustain the
Examiner's rejection of independent claims 5 and 9 under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103 (a) for the same reasons set forth above with respect to claim 1.
Dependent claims 2-4, 6-8, and 10-12
Claims 2--4, 6-8, and 10-12 depend, directly or indirectly, from
independent claims 1, 5, and 9, respectively. None of the rejections based
on AAPA (claims 2, 6, and 10), Huber-Buschbeck (claims 3, 7, and 10) and
Bishop (claims 4, 8, and 12), in combination with Knipfer, Robinson, and
Baur, cures the deficiency in the Examiner's rejection of independent
claims 1, 5, and 9. Therefore, we do not sustain the Examiner's rejections of
claims 2--4, 6-8, and 10-12 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) for the same reasons
set forth above with respect to the independent claims from which they
respectively depend.
DECISION
The Examiner's rejection of claims 1-3 under 35 U.S.C. § 112,
second paragraph, is affirmed.
The Examiner's rejections of claims 1-12 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a)
are 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)(l)(iv).
AFFIRMED-IN-PART
8