11213168 (B.P.A.I. Jul. 24, 2012)

Ex Parte Doerfler et al

Board of Patent Appeals and InterferencesJul 24, 2012

11213168 (B.P.A.I. Jul. 24, 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. 11/213,168 08/25/2005 Andre Doerfler 6741P065 9281 45062 7590 07/24/2012 SAP/BSTZ BLAKELY SOKOLOFF TAYLOR & ZAFMAN 1279 Oakmead Parkway Sunnyvale, CA 94085-4040 EXAMINER JACKSON, ERNEST ADEYEMI ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 3623 MAIL DATE DELIVERY MODE 07/24/2012 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 BOARD OF PATENT APPEALS AND INTERFERENCES ____________________ Ex parte ANDRE DOERFLER, THOMAS GROSS- BOELTING, BERNHARD LOKOWANDT, DIRK MEIER- BARTHOLD, and STEFAN SIEBERT ____________________ Appeal 2011-001827 Application 11/213,168 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 2011-001827 Application 11/213,168 2 STATEMENT OF CASE Appellants appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134 from a rejection of claims 1- 24. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). The claims are directed to a system and method for synchronizing sales order confirmations with material flow determinations within a supply chain management system (Spec., para. [0001]). Claim 1, reproduced below, is illustrative of the claimed subject matter: 1. A method comprising: receiving an indication of a new sales order having associated therewith a desired quantity and a desired delivery date; determining whether the desired quantity can be promised by the desired delivery date based on current receipts; and generating, by a computer, a fixed pegging relationship between the new sales order and receipts identified to satisfy the new sales order if the desired quantity can be promised by the desired date. Claims 1-24 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Lidow (US 2002/0194057 A1, pub. Dec. 19, 2002). We REVERSE and enter a NEW GROUND of rejection under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a). FINDINGS OF FACT Specification FF1. “Fixed pegging” refers to the matching of specific sales order confirmations with specific receipts (paras. [0033], [0038]). Appeal 2011-001827 Application 11/213,168 3 Definitions FF2. The definition of allocate is “to assign or allot for a particular purpose” (Dictionary.com. Collins English Dictionary - Complete & Unabridged 10th Ed.) (http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/allocate) (last accessed: July 23, 2012). Lidow FF3. Lidow discloses that [i]n allocate supply routine 162, the parts which actually are available from suppliers (“constrained parts”) are allocated equally among the demanding customers and the forecasts of the customers are altered accordingly. In such an event, all demanding customers may receive an equal amount of the constrained parts, or the demanding customers may receive a pro rata share of the constrained parts based upon how many parts a particular customer requested in relation to how many parts other customers requested. (para. [0168]). ANALYSIS We are persuaded the Examiner erred in asserting that Lidow renders obvious “generating, by a computer, a fixed pegging relationship between the new sales order and receipts identified to satisfy the new sales order if the desired quantity can be promised by the desired date,” as recited in independent claim 11 (App. Br. 9-13; Reply Br. 3-5). The Specification sets forth a definition of “fixed pegging” as matching of specific sales order confirmations with specific receipts (FF1). The Examiner at first admits that 1 We choose independent claim 1 as representative of independent claims 9 and 17. See 37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(1)(vii). Appeal 2011-001827 Application 11/213,168 4 Lidow does not expressly teach the aforementioned aspect of independent claim 1, but then confusingly asserts that paragraph [0120] of Lidow discloses this aspect (Exam’r’s Ans. 5, 13). Regardless, paragraph [0120] of Lidow only discloses receiving and validating customer demand. While this demand may correspond to the recited sales order confirmations, the Examiner has not shown how paragraph [0120] of Lidow discloses receipts, let alone any matching between specific sales order confirmations with specific receipts. The Examiner then takes Official Notice that a program module running in a computer with a processor can generate this fixed pegging relationship, with “this” referring to paragraph [0120] of Lidow (Exam’r’s Ans. 5). However, for the above reasons, the Examiner has failed to show how paragraph [0120] of Lidow discloses the recited fixed pegging relationship. The Examiner then appears to cite Peachey-Kountz (US 2004/0068430 A1, pub. Apr. 8, 2004) and Non Patent Literature: Chien-Yu Chen, et al., Quantity and Due Date Quoting Available to Promise, Information Systems Frontiers, 477-88 (2001) (hereinafter “Chen”) to support the Official Notice (Exam’r’s Ans. 14). Initially, we note that Official Notice was not used as a factual basis for the fixed pegging relationship, for the reasons set forth above. Moreover, while paragraph [0009] of Peachey-Kountz and page 477 of Chen may disclose “available to promise” (“ATP”) systems that determines whether a customer order can be met with the current ATP supply, there is no matching of specific sales order confirmations with specific receipts, as required for the recited “fixed pegging.” Appeal 2011-001827 Application 11/213,168 5 NEW GROUND We newly reject independent claims 1, 9, and 17 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Lidow. We adopt the Examiner’s findings and rationales concerning all aspects of independent claim 1, as set forth on pages 4-6 of the Examiner’s Answer, with the exception of the following aspect: generating, by a computer, a fixed pegging relationship between the new sales order and receipts identified to satisfy the new sales order if the desired quantity can be promised by the desired date. Paragraph [0168] of Lidow discloses allocating “‘constrained parts’” from suppliers to particular customers (FF3). Allocating is “to assign or allot for a particular purpose” (FF2). Accordingly, Lidow’s disclosing of assigning or allotting, to particular customers for a particular purpose, specific “‘constrained parts’” from suppliers, meets the Specification’s definition of “fixed pegging” as matching of specific sales order confirmations with specific receipts (FF1). This rejection is also applied to the corresponding aspects of independent claims 9 and 17. We have exercised our discretion under 37 C.F.R. § 41.50(b) to reject only independent claims 1, 9, and 17. However, upon any further prosecution, the Examiner should reconsider the patentability of the dependent claims in light of our new grounds of rejection. DECISION The Examiner’s rejection of claims 1-24 is REVERSED. We enter a NEW GROUND of rejection for independent claims 1, 9, and 17. Appeal 2011-001827 Application 11/213,168 6 FINALITY OF DECISION This decision contains a new ground of rejection pursuant to 37 C.F.R. § 41.50(b). 37 C.F.R. § 41.50(b) provides “[a] new ground of rejection pursuant to this paragraph shall not be considered final for judicial review.” 37 C.F.R. § 41.50(b) also provides that Appellants, WITHIN TWO MONTHS FROM THE DATE OF THE DECISION, must exercise one of the following two options with respect to the new grounds of rejection to avoid termination of the appeal as to the rejected claims: (1) Reopen prosecution. Submit an appropriate amendment of the claims so rejected or new evidence relating to the claims so rejected, or both, and have the matter reconsidered by the examiner, in which event the proceeding will be remanded to the examiner.… (2) Request rehearing. Request that the proceeding be reheard under § 41.52 by the Board upon the same record.… 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). REVERSED; 37 C.F.R. § 41.50(b) hh