Ex Parte Runde et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Oct 31, 2012

11323665 (P.T.A.B. Oct. 31, 2012)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
____________

BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
____________

Ex parte STEFANIE RUNDE, SERGIO ROZENSZAJN, AMIT YANIV,
ROBERT MEYER, HENNING SCHMITZ, MARTIN SCHMIDT,
IRENA KULL, and THOMAS FRIEDRICH
____________

Appeal 2010-006989
Application 11/323,665
Technology Center 2100
____________

Before JOHN A. JEFFERY, JENNIFER L. MCKEOWN, and
TRENTON A. WARD, Administrative Patent Judges.

JEFFERY, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL
Appellants appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Examiner’s
rejection of claims 1-19. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). We
affirm.

STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Appellants’ invention uses a template to generate objects for product
manufacturing and post-manufacturing product management environments.
Appeal 2010-006989
Application 11/323,665

2
See generally Abstract; Spec. 5-9; Fig. 1. Claim 1 is illustrative with key
disputed limitations emphasized:
1. A computer-implemented method to be performed in a computer
system in association with initiating a physical operation, the method
comprising:
receiving a request in a computer system for a physical operation, the
computer system configured to perform operations in a product
manufacturing environment and in a post-manufacturing product
management environment;
generating a first object to be used in the physical operation, the first
object being generated based on the physical operation using a multi-
environment template that is configured for generating objects for (1) a first
physical operation performed in the product manufacturing environment
and (2) a second physical operation performed in post-manufacturing
product management environment, relating to maintaining a product in a
warehouse without aspects of product manufacturing; and
wherein the physical operation is configured to be performed by
processor-based execution using the first object in one of the product
manufacturing environment and the post-manufacturing product
management environment.

THE REJECTION
The Examiner rejected claims 1-19 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
unpatentable over Marco von Mevius & Richard Pibernik, Process
Management in Supply Chains – A New Petri-Net Based Approach, PROC.
37TH HAW. INT’L CONF. ON SYS. SCI., IEEE (2004) (“Mevius”) and Wojcik
(US 2006/0218058 A1; Sept. 28, 2006 (eff. filed Aug. 24, 1993)). Ans. 3-9.1

1 Throughout this opinion, we refer to (1) the Appeal Brief filed September
14, 2009 (“App. Br.”); (2) the Examiner’s Answer mailed December 30,
2009 (“Ans.”); and (3) the Reply Brief filed February 1, 2010 (“Reply Br.”).
Appeal 2010-006989
Application 11/323,665

3
CONTENTIONS
The Examiner finds that Mevius discloses every recited feature of
representative claim 1 including generating a “first object” which the
Examiner equates to Mevius’ customer order tokens associated with element
“p1” in Figure 1, where the object is said to be generated based on a physical
operation using a “multi-environment template,” which the Examiner maps
to Mevius’ received customer orders associated with element “t1.” Ans. 3-4,
9-15. Although the Examiner acknowledges that Mevius does not explicitly
disclose a second physical operation performed in a post-manufacturing
product management environment relating to maintaining a product in a
warehouse without aspects of manufacturing, the Examiner nonetheless cites
Wojcik as teaching this feature in concluding that the claim would have been
obvious. Ans. 7-9, 11-15.
Appellants argue that the cited prior art does not teach or suggest the
recited multi-environment template configured for generating the recited
manufacturing and post-manufacturing objects, but rather teaches using
separate templates and therefore teaches away from the recited multi-
environment template. App. Br. 5-8. Appellants add that Mevius’ customer
orders are not templates as the Examiner asserts, let alone multi-environment
templates, but rather electronic documents transmitted to the system and, in
any event, the Examiner’s reliance on Mevius’ tokens (supply chain objects
(SCOs)) is misplaced. Reply Br. 2-4.

ISSUES
I. Under § 103, has the Examiner erred in rejecting claim 1 by finding
that Mevius and Wojcik collectively would have taught or suggested
Appeal 2010-006989
Application 11/323,665

4
generating a first object to be used in a physical operation, the object
generated based on the operation using a multi-environment template
configured for generating objects for (1) a first physical operation performed
in a product manufacturing environment, and (2) a second physical operation
performed in a post-manufacturing environment, relating to maintaining a
product in a warehouse without aspects of product manufacturing?
II. Is the Examiner’s reason to combine the teachings of these
references supported by articulated reasoning with some rational
underpinning to justify the Examiner’s obviousness conclusion?

ANALYSIS
This appeal turns on one key threshold question: What is a
“template”? Although Appellants (Reply Br. 2-3) dispute the Examiner’s
mapping the recited “multi-environment template” to Mevius’ received
customer orders associated with element “t1” in Figure 1 (Ans. 10-11, 13) as
noted above, Appellants provide no concrete definition of the term
“template”—let alone a “multi-environment template”—to preclude the
Examiner’s interpretation.
Nevertheless, Appellants’ Specification indicates that “[a] template
may be viewed as an abstract entity from which realizable objects can be
generated to suit a particular environment.” Spec. 8:12-13 (emphasis
added). But leaving aside the permissive language “may” in this sentence
which does not require a template to be so viewed, we still find nothing in
this description that precludes Mevius’ “abstract entities” associated with
received customer orders as corresponding to the recited “template” even if
the term was limited to Appellants’ description.
Appeal 2010-006989
Application 11/323,665

5
Mevius’ supply chain process (SCP) modeling system uses XML-nets
that are a type of high-level “Petri-net” that represents (1) supply chain data
objects, and (2) physical supply chain objects as XML documents. Mevius,
at 1 (§ 1). To model SCPs with Petri-nets, Mevius defines a type of Petri-net
known as “place/transition (p/t) nets” defined as tuples including sets of
“places” (p) and “transitions” (t). Mevius, at 2 (§ 3.1).
Mevius’ exemplary p/t-net in Figure 1 pertains to a printer assembly
process that begins when the manufacturer forwards incoming customer
orders to a logistics service provider (LSP) via an XML-EDI interface (t1).
Mevius, at 3 (§ 3.2); Fig. 1. The received customer orders are represented
by the tokens located in the place “customer orders” (p1). Id. After
generating corresponding manufacturing orders (t2), the required
components are picked and conveyed to an assembly station (t3-4) where the
printer is assembled (t5), and then conveyed to a flash-station where the
printers’ ROM are configured (t6-7). Id. If the printer then passes a test
(t8), the order is packaged, and then palletized and sent to a pickup zone
(t10) if the order is more than two printers; otherwise, the order is sent to a
collection zone (t 12) for parcel service. Id.
Based on this functionality, we see no error in the Examiner’s position
(Ans. 10-11, 13-14) that Mevius’ received customer orders at least suggest
the recited “template” since there would be some sort of data structure or
entity associated with these received orders that form the basis for
generating (1) the associated representative tokens (i.e., “first objects”)
located in the customer order place “p1” as noted above, and (2) other
objects associated with the assembly process. Even assuming, without
deciding, that customers order printers by transmitting electronic documents
Appeal 2010-006989
Application 11/323,665

6
to Mevius’ system as Appellants contend (Reply Br. 2), Appellants still do
not show that associated data or entities do not constitute templates, namely
“abstract entit[ies] from which realizable objects can be generated to suit a
particular environment” according to the description noted above.
In Mevius, “received customer orders are represented by the tokens
located in the place “customer orders” (p1). For every customer order a
manufacturing order is generated (t2).” Mevius § 3.2. Since data structures
or entities associated with Mevius’ customer orders form the basis for
generating objects associated with both manufacturing (Ans. 10 (citing
“picking (t3),” “convey to assembly (t4)”, and “assembly (t5)”)) and post-
manufacturing environments (Ans. 10 (citing
“packaging/labeling/palletizing” (t9 and t11))) as the Examiner indicates
(Ans. 10-11, 13), we see no error in the Examiner’s position that Mevius at
least suggests the recited multi-environment template. Appellants’
arguments to the contrary (App. Br. 5-8; Reply Br. 2-4) are unavailing and
not commensurate with the scope of the claim.
Nor are we persuaded of error in the Examiner’s reliance on Wojcik
merely to show that it is well known that a post-manufacturing product
management environment relates to maintaining products in a warehouse.
Ans. 8-9, 12-15 (citing Wojcik, ¶¶ 0116, 0162). Leaving aside the fact that
Mevius’ packaging, labelling, and palletizing steps are arguably at least
related to warehouses as the Examiner indicates (Ans. 11), skilled artisans
would nonetheless understand that a post-manufacturing product
management environment relating to maintaining products in a warehouse,
such as that in Wojcik, would have been an obvious aspect in Mevius.
Appeal 2010-006989
Application 11/323,665

7
Therefore, regardless of whether the Examiner cited Wojcik merely
for the limited teaching of maintaining products in a warehouse as explained
in the Answer’s Response to Arguments, or more broadly for a template
configured to generate objects associated with such post-manufacturing
environments in the rejection (compare Ans. 8-9 with Ans. 11-15), we
nonetheless see no error in the Examiner’s position that providing a multi-
environment template to generate manufacturing and post-manufacturing
objects as claimed would have been obvious in view of the references’
collective teachings. The Examiner’s reason to combine the teachings of
these references is therefore supported by articulated reasoning with some
rational underpinning to justify the Examiner’s obviousness conclusion.
We are therefore not persuaded that the Examiner erred in rejecting
representative claim 1, and claims 2-19 not separately argued with
particularity.

CONCLUSION
The Examiner did not err in rejecting claims 1-19 under § 103.

ORDER
The Examiner’s decision rejecting claims 1-19 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

babc