Ex Parte Dabbiere et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Oct 11, 2012

09860829 (P.T.A.B. Oct. 11, 2012)

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.
09/860,829 05/21/2001 Alan Dabbiere 20249.0002.NPUS01 4975
77213 7590 10/12/2012
Novak Druce + Quigg, LLP
300 New Jersey Ave, NW
Fifth Floor
Washington, DC 20001
EXAMINER
THEIN, MARIA TERESA T
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
3627
MAIL DATE DELIVERY MODE
10/12/2012 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
____________________

Ex parte ALAN DABBIERE, DEEPAK RAGHAVAN, and
EDWARD CAPEL
____________________

Appeal 2011-003512
Application 09/860,829
Technology Center 3600
____________________

Before: ANTON W. FETTING, JOSEPH A. FISCHETTI, and
MICHAEL W. KIM, Administrative Patent Judges.

KIM, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL

Appeal 2011-003512
Application 09/860,829

2
STATEMENT OF CASE
Appellants appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134 from a rejection of claims 1-
3, 8-10, and 12-241. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We AFFIRM.
The claims are directed to a business community integration tool for
providing to manufacturers, suppliers, retailers and other trading partners
integrated, real-time access to such supply chain data as supply/inventory,
demand, delivery status, etc. (Spec. 1). Claim 1, reproduced below, is
illustrative of the claimed subject matter:
1. A method for real-time supply chain
management over a network, comprising:
automatically extracting real-time capacity
and price information for a product on an ongoing
basis;
communicating over the network, the real-
time capacity and price information for the
product, wherein the real-time capacity and price
information for the product communicated over the
network is controlled based on predetermined
criteria relating to a buyer;
receiving from the buyer over the network
purchase information based on the controlled real-
time capacity and price information for the
product;
implementing an automated process for
adjusting by a seller, in real-time, at least one of
the capacity and the price based on 1) the capacity
and price information for the product most recently
communicated, and 2) the purchase information of
the buyer most recently communicated; and

1 Our decision will make reference to the Appellants’ Appeal Brief (“App.
Br.,” filed May 13, 2010) and Reply Brief (“Reply Br.,” filed October 4,
2010), and the Examiner’s Answer (“Ans.,” mailed August 4, 2010).
Appeal 2011-003512
Application 09/860,829

3
repeating as necessary said communicating,
said receiving, and said adjusting, in a real-time
collaborative communication, the capacity and
price information between the buyer and seller to
achieve an efficient balance between the capacity
and price information and the purchase
information of the buyer.

THE PRIOR ART
The Examiner relied upon the following as evidence of
unpatentability:
O’Neill US 6,219,653 B1 Apr. 17, 2001
Salvo US 6,341,271 B1 Jan. 22, 2002
Walsh US 6,810,429 B1 Oct. 26, 2004

THE REJECTIONS
Claims 1-3 and 8-10,12-13,17, and 20-24 are rejected under 35 U.S.C.
103(a) as being unpatentable over O’Neill in view of Salvo.
Claims 14-16 and 18-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being
unpatentable over O'Neill and Salvo as applied to claim 10 above, and
further in view of Walsh.

OPINION
Independent Claim 1
We are not persuaded the Examiner erred in asserting that a
combination of O’Neill and Salvo renders obvious independent claim 12
(App. Br. 11-13; Reply Br. 2-3). Appellants assert that “O’Neill does not
disclose automatically extracting real-time capacity and price information

2 We choose independent claim 1 as representative of independent claims 1,
10, and 22. See 37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(1)(vii).
Appeal 2011-003512
Application 09/860,829

4
for a product on an ongoing basis” (App. Br. 11). However, the Examiner
has cited Salvo for disclosing this aspect (Ans. 6, 16). See In re Merck &
Co. Inc., 800 F.2d 1091, 1097 (Fed. Cir. 1986) (the argument that a single
reference alone does not disclose the recited claimed steps is not persuasive
because nonobviousness cannot be established by attacking the references
individually when the rejection is predicated upon a combination of prior art
disclosures); In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 426 (CCPA 1981) (“one cannot
show non-obviousness by attacking references individually where, as here,
the rejections are based on combinations of references”). Appellants then
assert that “[s]uch a teaching [in Salvo] does not provide the portion of the
claim not taught by O’Neill because ‘automatically monitoring an inventory
system’ is not ‘automatically extracting real-time capacity and price
information for a product on an ongoing basis’” (Reply Br. 2). However,
column 3, lines 42-48 of Salvo explicitly discloses real-time inventory
(capacity) and column 6, lines 7-27 of Salvo explicitly discloses real-time
inventory prices.
Appellants further assert that the “re-executing [in O’Neill] is to
‘verify the ability of a particular seller client 24 to satisfy the buy request
communicated by the buyer client 22.’ O'Neill at col. 37, lines 29-21.”
O’Neill does not disclose receiving additional purchase information from a
buyer based on adjusted price and capacity information” (App. Br. 12; Reply
Br. 3). However, the aspect of “receiving additional purchase information
from a buyer based on adjusted price and capacity information” is not set
forth in independent claim 1. See CollegeNet, Inc. v. ApplyYourself, Inc.,
418 F.3d 1225, 1231 (Fed. Cir. 2005) (while the specification can be
examined for proper context of a claim term, limitations from the
Appeal 2011-003512
Application 09/860,829

5
specification will not be imported into the claims). Moreover, we note that
the recited aspect “repeating as necessary” signifies that the references may
meet the claim aspect without repetitions if such repetitions were deemed
“not necessary,” and that “to achieve an efficient balance between the
capacity and price information and the purchase information of the buyer” is
an intended use that is satisfied if the rest of the claim aspect is set forth in
the references.
Appellants also assert that “Salvo fails to disclose or suggest repeating
the communicating real-time capacity and price information and receiving
purchase information from the buyer to achieve an efficient balance between
the capacity and price information and the purchase information of the
buyer,” as recited in independent claim 1 (App. Br. 12-13; Reply Br. 2-3).
However, O’Neill is cited as disclosing this aspect, with the exception of
“real-time capacity and price information.” For that, the Examiner cites
Salvo (Ans. 5-6, 20-23). Appellants have again failed to provide specific
technical arguments as to any error in the combination set forth by the
Examiner. See In re Merck & Co. Inc., 800 F.2d at 1097; In re Keller, 642
F.2d at 426.

Dependent Claims
Appellants’ sole argument concerning the patentability of all
dependent claims is that they depend from one of allowable independent
claims 1, 10, and 22 (App. Br. 13-14). Accordingly, for the same reasons
we sustain the rejections of independent claim 1, 10, and 22, we also sustain
the rejections of all dependent claims.
Appeal 2011-003512
Application 09/860,829

6
For Appellants’ argument that “Walsh fails to disclose or suggest
repeating the communicating real-time capacity and price information and
receiving purchase information from the buyer to achieve an efficient
balance between the capacity and price information and the purchase
information of the buyer” (App. Br. 13-14), we note that the combination of
O’Neill and Salvo are cited for disclosing this aspect (Ans. 5-6, 20-23).

DECISION
The Examiner’s rejection of claims 1-3, 8-10, and 12-24 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).

AFFIRMED

Klh