Ex Parte Soehngen et alDownload PDFPatent Trial and Appeal BoardFeb 26, 201611256106 (P.T.A.B. Feb. 26, 2016) Copy Citation UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE 111256,106 10/24/2005 131475 7590 02/26/2016 Dilworth IP - SAP 2 Corporate Drive, Suite 206 Trumbull, CT 06611 FIRST NAMED INVENTOR Tanja Soehngen 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. 247-034US 6497 EXAMINER LEVINE, ADAM L ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 3625 MAILDATE DELIVERY MODE 02/26/2016 PAPER 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. PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07) UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD Ex parte TANJA SOEHNGEN, FRANK MILPETZ, PATRICK KARCHER, and PAOLA SALA Appeal2013-008135 Application 11/256, 106 Technology Center 3600 Before HUBERT C. LORIN, BIBHU R. MOHANTY, and BRADLEY B. BAY AT, 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 claims 1-24 which are all the claims pending in the application. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). SUMMARY OF THE DECISION We AFFIRM. Appeal2013-008135 Application 11/256, 106 THE INVENTION The Appellants' claimed invention is directed to the management of business partners in a procurement management system (Spec. i-f 1 ). Claim 1, reproduced below with numbering in brackets added, is representative of the subject matter on appeal. 1. A computer-implemented method for managing business partners in a procurement management system, the method compnsmg: [ 1] allowing a user to manage a plurality of invoicing parties associated with a business partner in a first interface displayed on a computer system, wherein the first interface comprises a menu item for allowing the user to search for at least one invoicing party to manage; [2] determining, by a processor, a default invoicing party from the plurality of invoicing parties associated with the business partner; [3] generating, by the processor, a second interface that displays an invoice associated with the business partner on the computer system; [ 4] automatically providing, by the processor, the default invoicing party as a responsible invoicing party in the displayed invoice; and [5] allowing the user to replace the provided default invoicing party in the second interface with another one of the plurality of invoicing parties associated with the business partner. THE REJECTION The following rejection is before us for review: Claims 1-24 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Cramon (US 2002/0103660 Al, pub. Aug. 1, 2002) and Gilberto (US 2003/0158791 Al, pub. Aug. 21, 2003). 2 Appeal2013-008135 Application 11/256, 106 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 evidence. 1 ANALYSIS Claims 1, 3, 5--8, 10, 12-15, 17, and 19-24 The Appellants argue that the rejection of claim 1 is improper because the references do not disclose the elements of claim limitations [3] and [ 4] (Appeal Br. 12-16, Reply Br. 2---6). In contrast, the Examiner has determined that the rejection is proper (Ans. 2-11; see also Final Act. 3---6). We agree with the Examiner. With regard to claim limitation [3], Appellants argue that "Gilberto contains no disclosure regarding whether its generated invoice is displayed, let alone whether 'a second interface that displays an invoice' is generated" (Appeal Br. 14). Figure 42 of Gilberto shows a portion of an order and payment visibility process including element 122 "Trigger electronic invoice to buyer" and element 130 "Review/Audit invoice" (see also Gilberto, i-fi-128, 99-116). Gilberto discloses that "[p ]referably, the invoice is generated automatically and submitted to the buyer (keystone icon 126) in an electronic format" (Gilberto, i-f 114). Further, Figure 3 of Gilberto depicts sending an invoice to a buyer via email, mail, or fax. Thus, the cited combination and Gilberto's disclosure of generating an electronic invoice that can be sent via email meets claim limitation [3]. 1 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 Appeal2013-008135 Application 11/256, 106 With regard to claim limitation [4], Appellants argue that Gilberto does not disclose "automatically providing, by the processor, the default invoicing party as a responsible invoicing party" because "Gilberto is silent regarding what specific information is included in its generated invoice" (Appeal Br. 15). However, Gilberto discloses that the "electronic invoice is created using the purchase order information" (Gilberto, i-f 114), and that the purchase order information includes the supplier (id. i-fi-1 63---65; Fig. 14 ). Thus, the cited combination and Gilberto disclose that the system provides electronic invoice purchase order information and provides the supplier as the "invoicing party" meeting the cited claim limitation. For these reasons, the rejection of claim 1 is sustained. The Appellants have provided the same arguments for independent claims 5, 8, 12, 15, and 19 and dependent claims 3, 6, 7, 10, 13, 14, 17, and 20-24, and the rejection of these claims is sustained for the same reasons given above. Dependent claims 2, 4, 9, 11, 16 and 18 The Appellants argue that the Examiner's rejection of claims 2, 9, and 16 is improper because Cramon does not disclose "allowing the user to select one of the plurality of invoicing parties as a user-selected default invoicing party in the first interface" (Appeal Br. 16-17, Reply Br. 6-8). In contrast, the Examiner has determined that the rejection is proper (Ans. 3, 11-12; see also Final Act. 7). We agree with the Examiner. Paragraph 444 of Cramon teaches that when stocking a new item, the purchasing department identifies the supplier, if not given, and Figure 3 shows that the supplier sends the invoice. Thus, Cramon discloses that a user selects an invoicing party for a purchase order. 4 Appeal2013-008135 Application 11/256, 106 Gilberto teaches that the purchase order information is used to automatically generate an electronic invoice, as discussed above. Thus, the combined teachings of Cramon and Gilberto would result in the user-selected invoicing party being the default invoicing party in the automatically-generated mv01ce. For these reasons, the rejection of claims 2, 9, and 16 is sustained. The Appellants have provided the same arguments for dependent claims 4, 11, and 18, and the rejection of these claims is sustained for the same reasons given above. CONCLUSIONS OF LAW We conclude that the Appellants have not shown that the Examiner erred in rejecting the claims as listed in the Rejection section above. DECISION The Examiner's rejection of claims 1-24 is sustained. 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)(iv) (2015). AFFIRMED 5 Copy with citationCopy as parenthetical citation