Ex Parte Heitner et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Aug 5, 2016

11323666 (P.T.A.B. Aug. 5, 2016)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE
111323,666 12/30/2005
32864 7590 08/09/2016
FISH & RICHARDSON, P,C (SAP)
PO BOX 1022
MINNEAPOLIS, MN 55440-1022
FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
Ami Heitner
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.
15609-0102001/2005P00934 3615
EXAMINER
BOYCE, ANDRE D
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
3623
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
08/09/2016 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):
P ATDOCTC@fr.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte AMI HEITNER, IRENA KULL, AMITY ANIV, PAVEL SOSIN,
SERGIO ROZENSZAJN, and DAVID BOAZ
Appeal2014-002982
Application 11/323,666
Technology Center 3600
Before JOSEPH A. FISCHETTI, BIBHU R. MOHANTY, and
MICHAEL W. KIM, Administrative Patent Judges.
MOHANTY, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
The Appellants seek our review under 35 U.S.C. § 134 of the final
rejection of claim 24, which is the only claim pending in the application 1.
We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b ).
1 The Appeal Brief at page 1 indicates that claim 24 is the only claim
pending. See also App. Br. 3 ("An Advisory Action, dated May 1, 2013,
entered Applicant's April 23, 2013 After-final Amendment that wrote
dependent claim 24 into independent form and cancelled all other claims.")
Appeal2014-002982
Application 11/323,666
SUivHvIARY OF THE DECISION
We REVERSE.
THE INVENTION
The Appellants' claimed invention is directed to object-based
information collection in performing a physical operation (Spec. 3, lines 2
and 3). Claim 24, reproduced below, is representative of the subject matter
on appeal.
24. A computer-implemented method to be performed in a
computer system in association with initiating a physical
operation, the method comprising:
receiving, in a computer system, a request for the
computer system to initiate performance of a physical operation;
generating, by the computer system in response to
receiving the request, an order object that describes multiple
activities of a planned performance of the physical operation,
wherein the physical operation comprises physically
manufacturing a physical product in a product
manufacturing process;
generating, by the computer system in response to
receiving the request, an information collection object that is
configured to:
(i) exist in the computer system at least during
actual performance of the physical operation, and
(ii) record actual data that is generated in the
computer system during the actual performance of
the physical operation and that describes multiple
activities of the actual performance of the physical
operation for manufacturing the product, wherein
the actual data documents progress of the actual
performance of the physical operation;
initiating the actual performance of the physical operation
based on the description in the order object of the multiple
activities of the planned performance of the physical operation;
obtaining, by the computer system, the actual data that is
generated during the actual performance of the physical
2
Appeal2014-002982
Application 11/323,666
operation and that describes the multiple activities of the actual
performance of the physical operation;
recording, by the computer system, the actual data in the
information collection object, wherein during the actual
performance of the physical operation a change in the multiple
activities of the physical operation for manufacturing the product
is made relative to the description by the order object of the
multiple activities of the planned performance of the physical
operation for manufacturing the product;
recording, by the computer system, the change in the
multiple activities of the physical operation in the information
collection object and not in the order object; and
comparing, by the computer system, the information
collection object to the order object to determine the change
between the multiple activities of the planned performance of the
physical operation for manufacturing the product and the
multiple activities of the actual performance of the physical
operation for manufacturing the product.
THE REJECTION
The following rejection is before us for review:
Claim 24 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over
Ekberg (US 7,379,779 B2, iss. May 27, 2008) and Lucas (US 2009/0287321
Al, pub. Nov. 19, 2009).
FINDINGS OF FACT
We have determined that the findings of fact in the Analysis section
below are supported at least by a preponderance of the evidence2.
2 See Ethicon, Inc. v. Quigg, 849 F.2d 1422, 1427 (Fed. Cir. 1988)
(explaining the general evidentiary standard for proceedings before the
Patent Office).
3
Appeal2014-002982
Application 11/323,666
ANALYSIS
The Appellants first argue that the rejection of claim 24 is improper
because the prior art fails to disclose the claim limitation for
recording ... during the actual performance of the physical operation
a change in the multiple activities of the physical operation for
manufacturing the product is made relative to the description by the
order object ... [and] recording ... the change in the information
collection object and not in the order object.
(App. Br. 7, Reply Br. 1--4, emphasis added). In contrast, the Examiner has
determined that the rejection is proper and cited Lucas at paragraphs 64, 85,
and 86 (Ans. 3-5).
We agree with the Appellants. Lucas at paragraph 64 discloses the
use of class objects 52 (which would be used to carry out a method), but
nothing of any change in those activities or recording. Lucas at paragraph
85 discloses a class object 410 that includes methods 530 which may include
a "change management method" that propagates changes to the class object
410 or multiple objects 526. Thus, since the class object 410 includes the
method 530, which includes the "change management method," it has not
been shown that the change is recorded in the information collection object
and not in the order object. Lucas at paragraph 86 fails to disclose the
argued claim limitation as well. As the cited claim limitation has not been
shown, the rejection of record is not sustained.
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
We conclude that Appellants have shown that the Examiner erred in
rejecting claim 24 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Ekberg and
Lucas.
4
Appeal2014-002982
Application 11/323,666
DECISION
The Examiner's rejection of claim 24 is not sustained.
REVERSED
5