11134900 (P.T.A.B. Mar. 27, 2013)

Ex Parte Mueller

Patent Trial and Appeal BoardMar 27, 2013

11134900 (P.T.A.B. Mar. 27, 2013)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE ____________________ BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD ____________________ Ex parte KARL R. MUELLER ____________________ Appeal 2010-008138 Application 11/134,900 Technology Center 2100 ____________________ Before DEBRA K. STEPHENS, JUSTIN BUSCH, and HUNG H. BUI, Administrative Patent Judges. BUSCH, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL Appeal 2010-008138 Application 11/134,900 2 Appellant appeals under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from a non-final rejection of claims 1, 3-11, and 13-38. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). We AFFIRM. Introduction Appellant’s invention relates to a system and method for building and providing a universal product configuration system for arbitrary domains. Spec. § Abstract. STATEMENT OF THE CASE Exemplary Claim Claim 1, reproduced below, is illustrative of the claimed subject matter: 1. A computer-assisted universal product configuration system, comprising: a display device; an input device; a domain framework interface for receiving at least one conceptual framework pertaining to at least one product domain, said framework defining a universe of valid commercially offered products pertaining to said at least one product domain, said framework including a plurality of data types; a domain knowledge interface for receiving at least one domain expert knowledge set pertaining to said at least one product domain, said knowledge set including at least one product attribute constraint or at least one product relationship constraint, with the at least one product attribute constraint or the at least one product relationship constraint ensuring derivation of valid product configuration selection options; and Appeal 2010-008138 Application 11/134,900 3 a processing unit operable to: derive at least one valid commercially offered product configuration selection option based upon said received conceptual framework and said received knowledge set; and construct a visual interface for display on said display device and pertaining to said valid commercially offered product configuration selection option, said visual interface responsive to input received from said input device. References Fogelson US 2002/0099617 A1 Jul. 25, 2002 Sant US 2003/0050969 A1 Mar. 13, 2003 Berns US 2004/0153352 A1 Aug. 5, 2004 Susnjara US 6,801,218 B2 Oct. 5, 2004 Rejections (1) Claims 1, 3-11, 13-22, 24, 25, 33, and 38 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Fogelson and Susnjara. Ans. 4-17. (2) Claims 23, 26-32, 34, and 35 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Fogelson, Susnjara, and Sant. Ans. 17- 28. (3) Claims 36 and 37 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Fogelson, Susnjara, Sant, and Berns. Ans. 28-32. ISSUE 1 Appellant argues that Fogelson and Susnjara do not teach various elements of independent claims 1, 11, 21, 24, 27, 30, 33, 36, and 38 as found by the Examiner. App. Br. 10-17. Appeal 2010-008138 Application 11/134,900 4 Issue 1: Does the combination of Fogelson and Susnjara teach or suggest “at least one product attribute constraint or at least one product relationship constraint, with the at least one product attribute constraint or the at least one product relationship constraint ensuring derivation of valid product configuration selection options” and “a processing unit operable to: derive at least one valid commercially offered product configuration selection option,” as recited in independent claim 1 and similarly recited in independent claims 11, 21, 24, 27, 30, 33, 36, and 38? ANALYSIS Appellant argues Fogelson’s product offerings cited by the Examiner “are not constraints as claimed and do not ensure derivation of valid product configuration selection options as claimed.” App. Br. 10. Appellant further argues “[t]he present invention extends beyond the mere selection or adjustment of variables in a product offering” because the claimed “constraint” is not merely a choice and “ensure[s] derivation of valid product configuration selection options.” App. Br. 10; Reply 3; See also App. Br. 11- 12 (arguing the invention “goes far beyond the mere selection or adjustment of variables in a product offering, which is essentially what the Examiner has cited in Fogelson and Susnjara.”) and App. Br. 12-14 (providing an example of what Appellant argues the invention is capable of but Fogelson is not and concluding “Fogelson and Susnjara have nothing to do with determining or deriving valid product configuration offerings as claimed in the present application”). Appellant asserts that the product offerings discussed in Fogelson “may be a ‘commercially offered product,’” but they do not meet the recited constraints. App. Br. 10. Appeal 2010-008138 Application 11/134,900 5 The Examiner finds that “constraint” can be broadly, but reasonably, construed to include a cost of a product, the dimensions of products that would be used in Fogelson’s “Builder’s Online Assistant,” or a choice between two product options. Ans. 5, 33. The Examiner further finds allowing only logical and physical configurations based on the frameworks involved (argued by Appellant in a Response to an Office Action, dated November 6, 2008) is not recited in the claims, and that Figure 27 of Fogelson shows a selection with a specific configuration. Ans. 33-34. We agree with the Examiner that to the extent Appellant argues limitations not present in the claims, the arguments, including the scope of the invention and descriptions of what the invention may be capable of, are not commensurate with the scope of the claim language. While we construe the claims in light of Appellant’s Specification, Appellant’s broad arguments, when not tied to specific language recited in the claims, are inapposite to our review of the claims presented. A review of Appellant’s Specification reveals no explicit definitions and, at best, broad, exemplary, and permissive (i.e., not limiting) descriptions. See, e.g., Spec. 4:19-5:2, 5:4- 6, and 10:2-8. While we read the claims in light of the Specification, we will not import limitations from Appellant’s Specification into the claims. We are not persuaded by Appellant’s arguments that the language identified in the claims (Reply 3-4) renders the Examiner’s construction unreasonably broad. Therefore, we agree with the Examiner that Appellant’s claimed constraints read on the cost and configuration constraints discussed in Fogelson. Moreover, because Fogelson’s product options require that only valid product configurations are selected, we find that Fogelson teaches or Appeal 2010-008138 Application 11/134,900 6 suggests “constraint[s] ensuring derivation of valid product configuration selection options,” as recited in independent claim 1 and similarly recited in independent claims 11, 21, 24, 27, 30, 33, 36, and 38. Appellant next argues that “a refrigerator product number is not a processing unit, nor … operable to derive a valid product configuration selection option.” App. Br. 10-11. Appellant also asserts the claims require combining a conceptual framework with a knowledge set to ensure derivation of the valid options. The Examiner finds that it is unclear whether the recited “processing unit” is a CPU or software code running on a CPU. Ans. 34. Regardless, the Examiner finds Fogelson’s computer used to implement the system inherently includes a “processing unit.” Ans. 34. The Examiner further finds the meaning of the recited “derive at least one valid commercially offered product configuration selection option” has two potential interpretations, both of which read on the process, software, and/or result identified by Figure 27 of Fogelson. Ans. 34. We agree with the Examiner’s findings that: (1) a processing unit is inherent to Fogelson’s computer-implemented system; and (2) Figure 27 of Fogelson teaches or suggests deriving a valid commercially offered product configuration selection option. Specifically, the products shown in Figure 27 of Fogelson are options of commercially offered products (refrigerators) available that are derived by the Fogelson system based on the user-selected constraints (e.g., style, design, price, material, and color). Contrary to Appellant’s arguments that the examination was piecemeal (Reply 5), we find the Examiner’s findings are supported by a preponderance of evidence Appeal 2010-008138 Application 11/134,900 7 because the products and product constraints provided in Fogelson ensure that Fogelson only derives valid configuration options. ISSUE 2 Issue 2: Does the combination of Fogelson and Susnjara teach or suggest “a first product domain” and “a second product domain,” as recited in independent claims 21 and 24? ANALYSIS Appellant argues the Examiner has not shown the first and second product domains, as recited in claims 21 and 24. App. Br. 14. Appellant asserts “[t]he concept of multiple product domains is clear from the specification, the pending claims,” and Appellant’s briefs. Reply 5. Appellant also argues “[t]he ‘third party website provider’ in paragraph 0011 of Fogelson referenced by the Examiner does not meet the limitation of the knowledge sets of the domain knowledge interface.” App. Br. 15. The Examiner finds the Specification does not disclose a “first product domain” or a “second product domain,” and therefore gives the terms the broadest reasonable interpretation, mapping the domains to different product types (e.g., floors, cabinets, counter tops, sinks). Ans. 35. The Examiner finds the product relationship constraints can be the two types of sinks offered. As discussed above, the Examiner also finds product costs and dimensions to be the recited constraints. Ans. 36. Giving the terms “first product domain” and second product domain” the broadest reasonable interpretation in light of the Specification, we agree with the Examiner’s findings that Fogelson discloses multiple product Appeal 2010-008138 Application 11/134,900 8 domains, each domain including constraints. Ans. 35. For example, the Examiner has discussed sinks as a domain with the options of two different sinks as a constraint. The Examiner has also discussed the refrigerator options shown in Figure 27 as valid product options, thus implicitly identifying refrigerators as another domain with constraints, including the user-selectable configuration options. Thus, we do not find Appellant’s arguments persuasive. ISSUE 3 Issue 3: Does the combination of Fogelson and Susnjara teach or suggest “a processing unit operable to determine whether said at least one product [configuration] selection is a valid configuration selection option for each of said selected frameworks,” as recited in independent claims 27 and 30 and “a processing unit operable to: derive at least one valid window or door product selection,” as recited in independent claim 36? ANALYSIS Independent Claims 27, 30 – Processing Unit Appellant alleges the Examiner uses Susnjara to reject the processing units recited in claims 27 and 30. App. Br. 15, 16. Appellant also asserts “the Examiner states that Fogelson does not teach a processing unit operable to determine whether the at least one product selection is a valid configuration selection option for each of the selected frameworks based upon the stored knowledge sets corresponding to the selected frameworks.” Reply 7. The Examiner explains that Susnjara is used to disclose a processing unit, not the function of the processing unit. Ans. 36. Appeal 2010-008138 Application 11/134,900 9 Our review indicates the Examiner’s statement about what Fogelson does not teach is limited to the “processing unit.” Ans. 36. The function of the processing unit in claims 27 and 30 is substantially the same function performed by the processing unit in claim 1. See Ans. 34. With respect to claim 1, the Examiner applied Fogelson to teach the function, but relied upon Susnjara for the teaching of the processing unit. Ans. 5. Moreover, as we previously stated, the computer of Fogelson inherently includes a processing unit. Ans. 34. Independent Claims 36– Processing Unit & Door and Window Industry Product Appellant alleges that “Susnjara describes software packages that permit adjustment of variables in the design of a cabinet, and does not show the elements of this claim term.” App. Br. 16. Appellant also asserts “Berns is a vendor referral system and does not show product constraints pertaining to product configurations,” as recited in claim 36. App. Br. 17. The Examiner finds “Susnjara is used to illustrate details in product option selection.” Ans. 36. The Examiner also explains that Berns is used “to map to the specific domains of windows and doors,” which, along with Fogelson’s Builder On-Line Assistant, teaches or suggests the recited limitation. Ans. 37. We agree with the Examiner’s findings that: (1) Susnjara shows a processing unit that derives valid product configuration options (Ans. 36); (2) Fogelson teaches a processing unit; and (3) the combination of Berns and Fogelson teaches or suggests the recited “constraint pertaining to a door and window industry product.” Ans. 37. As explained by the Examiner, Appeal 2010-008138 Application 11/134,900 10 Fogelson is directed to a “Builder On-Line Assistant.” Therefore, an ordinarily skilled artisan would have understood dimensions of doors and windows to be options that must be ensured to be valid in order to provide a useful system. The selection of different products, including doors and windows, would have been obvious to builders. ISSUE 4 Appellant also argues that the Examiner’s rejection lacks a rationale to support a conclusion of obviousness and that “applying, combining or substituting any of the teachings of Susnjara, Sant or Berns with Fogelson still only yields a system that enables a user to select a product already known to be available.” App. Br. 17-23. Issue 4: Did the Examiner err by not providing a sufficient motivation to combine Fogelson, Susnjara, Sant, and Berns? ANALYSIS Appellant alleges that the Examiner has not articulated the reasons why the claimed invention would have been obvious. App. Br. 18. However, this section of Appellant’s brief merely reiterates alleged flaws in the Examiner’s individual findings, cites some sections of the MPEP, and provides a brief statement of what Appellant views as the teachings of Susnjara, Sant, and Berns. App. Br. 17-22. The Examiner has articulated “reasoning with some rational underpinning to support the legal conclusion of obviousness,” In re Kahn, 441 F.3d 977, 988 (Fed. Cir 2006), in establishing that “there was an apparent reason to combine the known elements in the fashion claimed,” Appeal 2010-008138 Application 11/134,900 11 KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex, 550 U.S. 398, 418 (2007). See Ans. 4, 7, 11, 13, 18-32. Appellant has not presented sufficient evidence or argument to persuade us the Examiner’s articulated reasoning was in error. Thus, we find the Examiner has not erred in combining the references. ISSUE 5 Issue 5a: Does the combination of Fogelson and Susnjara teach or suggest “input device receives input in the form of a selection of a valid product,” as recited in dependent claims 7 and 17? Issue 5b: Does the combination of Fogelson and Susnjara teach or suggest “wherein said framework or said knowledge set further includes a plurality of product feature constraints or product combination constraints for valid product selection,” as recited in dependent claims 10 and 20? ANALYSIS With respect to dependent claims 7 and 17, Appellant alleges Fogelson’s “upon activation of the search key” is not equivalent to the claimed “input device receives input in the form of a selection of a valid product,” because the claim “requires that the valid product be selected from the at least one derived valid product selection option of claim 1.” App. Br. 23. Regarding claims 10 and 20, Appellant argues that Figure 3 of Fogelson “is merely a screen shot intended to show multiple products available for selection,” and does not meet the recited “a plurality of product feature constraints or product combination constraints for valid product selection.” App. Br. 24. Appeal 2010-008138 Application 11/134,900 12 The Examiner finds that providing a selection of valid options available (e.g., “two types of sinks”) meets the recited “derivation of a valid product selection,” and that “if Fogelson can produce a keyword search, then it is inherent that a valid input is provided.” Ans. 38. The Examiner also finds that the “listing of models with each model having a description of itself” meets the recited “product feature constraints or products combination” constraints for valid product selection. Ans. 39. A system that provides only valid options and has a search feature that returns a subset of those valid options meets the recited “input device receives input in the form of a selection of a valid product from said at least one derived valid product selection option.” We are not persuaded that the broadest reasonable interpretation of the claims 7 and 17 and claims 10 and 20, in light of the Specification, do not read on the portions of Fogelson identified by the Examiner. DECISION For the above reasons, the Examiner’s rejection of claims 1, 3-11, and 13-38 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)(1)(iv). AFFIRMED ELD