Ex Parte Knipfer et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Dec 28, 2015

11876487 (P.T.A.B. Dec. 28, 2015)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE
111876,487 10/22/2007
50594 7590 12/31/2015
CRGOLAW
STEVEN M. GREENBERG
7900 Glades Road
SUITE 520
BOCA RATON, FL 33487
FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
Ivory W. Knipfer
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.
RPS920070060US1 (083) 6301
EXAMINER
AGWUMEZIE, CHINEDU CHARLES
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
3685
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
12/31/2015 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):
docketing@crgolaw.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte IVORY W. KNIPPER, JASON S. LEE, and
MATTHEW H. ZEMKE
Appeal2013-003989
Application 11/876,487
Technology Center 3600
Before MURRIEL E. CRAWFORD, ANTON W. PETTING, and
TARA L. HUTCHINGS, Administrative Patent Judges.
CRAWFORD, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Appellants seek our review under 35 U.S.C. § 134 of the Examiner's
final decision rejecting claims 1-8. We have jurisdiction over the appeal
under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b ).
We AFFIRM.
Appeal2013-003989
Application 11/876,487
BACKGROUND
Appellants' invention is directed to a vendor data management system
and method in a multi-node supply network (Spec. i-f 1 ).
Claim 1 is illustrative:
1. A method for progressive vendor data management
and verification in a multi-node supply chain, the method
compnsmg:
propagating in a manufacturing execution system executing
in memory of a host computing platform, vendor data
requirements for a product component downstream from a root
node in the supply chain to a leaf node in the supply chain
producing a portion of the product component; and,
verifying in verification logic coupled to the manufacturing
execution system, vendor data at each node in the supply chain
according to the vendor data requirements.
The Examiner relies on the following prior art reference as evidence
of unpatentability:
Begelfer et al. US 6,547,137 Bl Apr. 15, 2003
Appellants appeal the following rejection(s):
Claims 1-8 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Begelfer.
ISSUE
Did the Examiner err in rejecting the claims because Begelfer does
not disclose vendor requirements for a product component and vendor data?
FACTUAL FINDINGS
We adopt the Examiner's findings as our own (Ans. 4--5).
Additional findings of fact may appear in the Analysis that follows.
2
Appeal2013-003989
Application 11/876,487
ANALYSIS
We agree with and adopt as our own the Examiner's reasoning in
support of the rejection and the Examiner's response to the arguments of the
Appellants. We add the following for emphasis only.
Appellants argue that claim 1 requires more than cross-referencing
scanned information of a product to determine its location but rather requires
that vendor data is verified according to vendor data requirements (App. Br.
7). According to the Appellants, the machine readable identifier that the
Examiner considers the vendor data is product data not vendor data. We do
not agree because the term "vendor data" uses the noun-adjective "vendor"
to modify in any manner the noun "data" and therefore is broad enough to
include product data placed on the label by the vendor (App. Br. 5). In this
regard we do not agree with the Appellants that the term "vendor data"
pertains to a vendor and decline to read the language of claim 1 so narrowly.
In addition, we note that Begelfer also discloses that a hologram is placed on
the label as well that includes the trademark of the manufacturer or supplier
and as such also is a teaching of placing vendor data on the label (Abst.).
Appellants' argue that the recitation in claim 1 of "vendor data
requirement" should be construed to mean the requirements of data for a
vendor. We agree with the Examiner that when the phrase "vendor data
requirement" is given its broadest reasonable construction it is broad enough
to cover the requirement by the vendor in Begelfer of scanning the data on
the labels of the products as the product moves through the chain.
In view of the foregoing, we will sustain the Examiner's rejection of
claim 1. We will also sustain the rejection as directed to the remaining
3
Appeal2013-003989
Application 11/876,487
claims because the Appellants have not argued the separate patentability of
these claims
DECISION
The decision of the Examiner 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)(l) (2009).
AFFIRMED
cda
4