Ex Parte Ruggieri et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Jun 9, 2016

12214961 (P.T.A.B. Jun. 9, 2016)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE
12/214,961 06/24/2008
27350 7590 06/13/2016
LERNER GREENBERG STEMER LLP
Box SA
P.O. BOX 2480
HOLLYWOOD, FL 33022-2480
FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
Vito Massimo Ruggieri
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.
2006P26749US 4103
EXAMINER
KASENGE,CHARLESR
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2126
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
06/13/2016 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):
boxsa@patentusa.com
docket@patentusa.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte VITO MASSIMO RUGGIERI and
MARK MATHIEU THEODORUS GIEBELS
Appeal2014-008572
Application 12/214,961
Technology Center 2100
Before ROBERT E. NAPPI, CARLL. SILVERMAN, and
SCOTT B. HOWARD, Administrative Patent Judges.
PERCURIAM
DECISION ON APPEAL
This is a decision on appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) of the
Examiner's Final Rejection of claims 1 through 4.
We affirm.
INVENTION
The invention is' directed to a distributed scheduler for a
manufacturing process. See abstract of Appellants' Specification. Claim 1
is illustrative of the invention and reproduced below:
1. A method of improving a performance of a distributed
scheduler for a manufacturing process having activities including a
production resource management, a production definition management,
and a detailed production scheduling, the method comprising instructions
executable by a processor to perform the steps of:
Appeal2014-008572
Application 12/214,961
providing a decision and prediction function over the activities
which carries out an analysis of a variability of the manufacturing
process and an influence of variability through an orders path;
taking results of said analysis into account while making an actual
detailed schedule in the detailed production scheduling;
setting scheduling rules for a production modeler that utilizes an
agent-based architecture to perform distributed, detailed production
scheduling, the scheduling rules being determined by limiting the
variability of a critical path; and
allocating a work order by using at least one software agent of the
production modeler in accordance with the scheduling rules for a more
reliable assembly station.
REJECTION AT ISSUE
The Examiner has rejected claims 1, 3, and 4 under 35 U.S.C.
§ 102(b) as being anticipated by Zelek (US 7,219,068 B2, May 15, 2007).
Final Action 3-5. 1
The Examiner has rejected claim 2 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Zelek and AlvSI/ISA-95. 00. 03-2005, American National
Standard, 20 (June 6, 2005). Final Action 5-6.
ANALYSIS
Appellants' argue that claim 1 recites using an agent base architecture
and a software agent that is not disclosed by Zelek. App. Br. 3-13.
Appellants assert that the term agent is well understood in the art and that
the skilled artisan "understands that software agents are software entities that
perceive their environment and respond through actions or tasks to fulfill a
2
Appeal2014-008572
Application 12/214,961
designed purpose." App. Br. 4--5. Appellants cited extrinsic evidence to
support their proffered interpretation of the term agent. App. Br. 5.
Appellants' arguments directed to Zelek not teaching the disputed agents are
based upon Appellants' proffered interpretation of the term agents. App. Br.
5-13.
The Examiner responds to Appellants' arguments, stating that the
Specification does not support the narrow interpretation proffered by
Appellants, as it does not require an agent to exhibit all four properties.
Answer 6. We agree with the Examiner, and are not persuaded of error in
the Examiner's rejection by Appellants' arguments. The Examiner has
provided an interpretation of the term agent and shown how Zelek teaches
this limitation which Appellants have not addressed. Answer 7-8. We
additionally note that the extrinsic evidence, Article by Franklin and
Graesser, does not demonstrate that the proffered interpretation is an
established understanding in the art for the term agent, rather the article is to
''propose a formal definition of an autonomous agent." Franklin and
Graessser, abstract (emphasis added). Further, Appellants' arguments that
the skilled artisan would not be motivated to use agents in Zelek and that
Zelek teaches away from the use of agents are not persuasive of error are not
applicable to an anticipation rejection. App. Br. 11. Accordingly, we are
not persuaded of error and sustain the Examiner's anticipation rejection of
claims 1, 3, and 4.
1 Throughout this opinion, we refer to the Appeal Brief filed January 21,
2014, Final Office Action mailed June 24, 2013 and the Examiner's Answer
mailed June 6, 2014.
3
Appeal2014-008572
Application 12/214,961
Appellants arguments directed to the obviousness rejection of claim 2
merely assert that the additional teachings of ANSI do not cure the
deficiencies discussed with respect to the rejection of claim 1. As discussed
above Appellants arguments have not persuaded us of error in the rejection
of claim 1, thus we sustain the rejection of claim 2 for the same reasons as
claim 1.
DECISION
For the above reasons, the Examiner's rejection of claims 1 through 4
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)(l )(iv).
AFFIRMED
4