Ex Parte Cushing et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Jun 25, 2014

11967822 (P.T.A.B. Jun. 25, 2014)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
___________

BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
___________

Ex parte SONIA J. CUSHING,
ERIC M. JONES,
IVORY W. KNIPFER,
and MATTHEW H. ZEMKE
___________

Appeal 2012-001794
Application 11/967,822
Technology Center 3600
___________

Before MURRIEL E. CRAWFORD, ANTON W. FETTING, and
MICHAEL W. KIM, Administrative Patent Judges.
FETTING, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
STATEMENT OF THE CASE1
Sonia J. Cushing, Eric M. Jones, Ivory W. Knipfer, and Matthew H.
Zemke (Appellants) seek review under 35 U.S.C. § 134 of a final rejection
of claims 1–13, the only claims pending in the application on appeal. We
have jurisdiction over the appeal pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).

1 Our decision will make reference to the Appellants’ Appeal Brief (“App.
Br.,” filed June 16, 2011) and Reply Brief (“Reply Br.,” filed October 31,
2011), and the Examiner’s Answer (“Ans.,” mailed August 31, 2011), and
Final Rejection (“Final Rej.,” mailed December 6, 2010).
Appeal 2012-001794
Application 11/967,822

2

The Appellants invented methods for management of short work units
for commercial manufacturing processes. (Spec., para. 1).
An understanding of the invention can be derived from a reading of
exemplary claim 1, which is reproduced below [bracketed matter and some
paragraphing added].
1. A method for managing production of a product when
components of the product are missing during a manufacturing
process, comprising:
[A] applying a first set of rules for determining whether a
short work unit can be released for manufacturing;
[B] clearing the short work unit to build, responsive to
determining that the short work unit can be released for
manufacturing;
[C] allocating for manufacturing a plurality of
components of the short work unit that are present in inventory;
[D] storing a record including a list of short components
of the short work unit;
[E] generating a first kit for the plurality of components
of the short work unit that are present in inventory and storing a
record including a location of the first kit,
[F] initiating manufacturing of the plurality of
components of the short work unit that are present in inventory;
[G] determining that at least one of the short components
of the short work unit are present in inventory; and
[H] generating a second kit for the at least one of the
short components of the short work unit that are present in
inventory.
The Examiner relies upon the following prior art:
Lyon US 2002/0103690 A1 Aug. 1, 2002
Wetzer US 6,820,038 B1 Nov. 16, 2004
Appeal 2012-001794
Application 11/967,822

3

Claims 1–6 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 101 as directed to non-
statutory subject matter.
Claims 1–13 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable
over Lyon and Wetzer.

ISSUES
The issue of obviousness turns on whether Lyon discloses a “short work
unit” that is cleared to build without all the necessary parts to complete the
work unit’s manufacture in inventory.

FACTS PERTINENT TO THE ISSUES
The following enumerated Findings of Fact (FF) are believed to be
supported by a preponderance of the evidence.
Facts Related to Claim Construction
01. The disclosure contains no lexicographic definition of “short work
unit.”
Facts Related to Appellants’ Disclosure
02. The Specification describes the term “short work unit” as follows:
. . . it is no longer feasible to wait for all materials to
arrive before manufacturing proceeds to build the
customer products. Thus, at times it is beneficial to start
the manufacturing of the product of an incoming order
before all of the necessary parts are available. This type
of work unit is called a short work unit because it is short
at least one component or part.
(Spec., para. 4).
Appeal 2012-001794
Application 11/967,822

4

Facts Related to the Prior Art
Lyon
03. Lyon is directed to a “demand fulfillment system using customer
orders and material replenishment times to schedule
manufacturing of build-to-customer-order items and scheduling
delivery of materials from in-house and/or external inventories for
use in manufacturing the items.” (Lyon, para. 4).
04. Lyon discloses “scheduling work for which inventory is available.
Parts and/or raw materials are requested and delivered to an
operation of at least one operation on a manufacturing line in the
factory from in-house and external inventory based upon the work
scheduled for that operation.” (Lyon, para. 14).
05. Lyon discloses a “material delivery schedule is developed on a
just-in-time basis so that materials are delivered to the
manufacturing line just prior to the time that the material is needed
for manufacturing the item.” (Lyon, para. 35).
06. Lyon discloses:
Because minimal inventory is maintained at the
manufacturing lines, material requests must be issued to
move materials to the manufacturing line, both from in-
house inventory and from external inventory. Available
external inventory and available in-house inventory
comprise the available inventory that may be used to
fulfill the material request. The material replenishment
time may be used as part of identifying available
inventory to fulfill the customer order.
(Lyon, para. 58).

Appeal 2012-001794
Application 11/967,822

5

Wetzer
07. Wetzer is directed to “a method and system for component
provisioning and issuance associated with at least one of
maintenance, repair, and overhaul of equipment.” (Wetzer, col. 1,
ll. 7–9)

ANALYSIS
Claims 1–13 rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Lyon
and Wetzer
Appellants argue independent claims 1, 7, and 13 as a group (App. Br.
11–12, Reply Br. 5), so we select claim 1 as representative. See 37 C.F.R.
§ 41.37(c)(1)(vii).
We are not persuaded by Appellants’ argument that the Examiner
construed the claim term “short work unit” in an unreasonably broad
manner, causing the Examiner “to exaggerate the scope and nature of
Lyon . . . .” (App. Br. 11–14, Reply Br. 3–7). The Specification does not
explicitly define the term “short work unit.” (FF 01). To act as its own
lexicographer, a patentee must “clearly set forth a definition of the disputed
claim term” other than its plain and ordinary meaning. CCS Fitness, Inc. v.
Brunswick Corp., 288 F.3d 1359, 1366 (Fed. Cir. 2002). It is not enough for
a patentee to simply disclose a single embodiment or use a word in the same
manner in all embodiments, the patentee must “clearly express an intent” to
redefine the term. Helmsderfer v. Bobrick Washroom Equip., Inc., 527 F.3d
1379, 1381 (Fed. Cir. 2008); see also Kara Tech. Inc. v. Stamps.com, 582
F.3d 1341, 1347–48 (Fed. Cir. 2009).
Appeal 2012-001794
Application 11/967,822

6

Instead, the Specification describes, by example, not waiting for all parts
to be available before scheduling the start of manufacturing on a product,
where the product for which not all parts are available at the start of
manufacturing is referred to as a “short work unit.” (FF 02). We therefore
construe a “short work unit” as a manufacturing order for which not all parts
are locally available for picking at the start, but enough parts are locally
available to begin manufacturing.
Lyon discloses the well-known concept of just-in-time scheduling in
material delivery “so that materials are delivered to the manufacturing line
just prior to the time that the material is needed for manufacturing the item.”
(FF 05). Lyon discloses “scheduling work for which inventory is available,”
but this is based on both “in-house and external inventory.” (FF 03, 06).
The material replenishment time may also be used as part of identifying
available inventory to fulfill the customer order. Id. Lyon schedules the
start of manufacturing when the in-house inventory is sufficient to begin
manufacturing, as long as the external inventory can be delivered to the line
by the time that material is needed for a specific operation. (FF 04). Lyon
thus discloses “short work unit” as a unit ready for manufacture based on
“in-house inventory,” for which the “missing” parts, in “external inventory”
or in transit from sources, can arrive when needed after the start of
manufacturing, without causing a wait in manufacturing. This meets the
claim language of limitations [A] to [C], [F], and [G].
For these reasons, we affirm the rejection of independent claims 1, 7,
and 13, as well as dependent claims 2–6 and 8–12, that were not argued
separately.
Appeal 2012-001794
Application 11/967,822

7

Claims 1–6 rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 101 as directed to non-statutory
subject matter
Because we affirm the rejection of claims 1–13 under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a), we do not reach the issue of the rejection under § 101.

CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
The rejection of claims 1–13 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable
over Lyon and Wetzer is proper.

DECISION
The rejection of claims 1–13 is affirmed.
No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with this
appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a). See 37 C.F.R.
§ 1.136(a)(1)(iv) (2011).

AFFIRMED

mls