Ex Parte Zhang et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Aug 25, 2016

13386402 (P.T.A.B. Aug. 25, 2016)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
13/386,402 01/20/2012 XinZhang
56436 7590 08/29/2016
Hewlett Packard Enterprise
3404 E. Harmony Road
Mail Stop 79
Fort Collins, CO 80528
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.
82929144 3921
EXAMINER
MEINECKE DIAZ, SUSANNA M
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
3683
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
08/29/2016 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):
hpe.ip.mail@hpe.com
mkraft@hpe.com
chris.mania@hpe.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte XIN ZHANG, SHAILENDRA K. JAIN, JERRY Z. SHAN,
CIPRIANO A. SANTOS, and JOSE LUIS BELTRAN GUERRERO
Appeal2014-007219 1
Application 13/386,4022
Technology Center 3600
Before MURRIEL E. CRAWFORD, ANTON W. PETTING, and
JAMES A. WORTH, Administrative Patent Judges.
WORTH, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Appellants appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Examiner's final
rejection of claims 1-11 and 13-24. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C.
§§ 134 and 6(b).
We AFFIRM-IN-PART.
1 Our decision refers to the Appellants' Appeal Brief ("Appeal Br.," filed
Mar. 22, 2014) and Reply Brief ("Reply Br.," filed June 9, 2014), and the
Examiner's Final Office Action ("Final Act.," mailed Nov. 8, 2013) and
Answer ("Ans.," mailed Apr. 25, 2014).
2 According to Appellants, the real party in interest is Hewlett-Packard
Development Company, L.P. (Appeal Br. 2).
Appeal2014-007219
Application 13/386,402
Introduction
Appellants' disclosure relates to a method, computer readable storage
medium, and computer system for "selecting suppliers to perform labor
services for an enterprise" (Spec. 1, 11. 4--5).
Claims 1, 8, and 15 are the independent claims on appeal. Claim 1,
reproduced below, is illustrative of the subject matter on appeal:
1. A method executed by a computer, comprising:
receiving historical data of suppliers;
applying, by the computer and to the historical data,
a mathematical optimization system including a set of
mathematical equations and inequalities that express capabilities
and capacities of the suppliers and including an objective
function that minimizes a number of the suppliers to perform
third-party labor services for an enterprise;
wherein capacities are determined by historical
business transaction volume of a supplier with the enterprise
during a time period multiplied by an adjustment factor that
reflects future performance capacity of the supplier, and wherein
capacity factors and supplier share limits are parameterized as
sensitivity analysis scenarios; and
selecting, by the computer, a sub-set of the suppliers
to perform the third-party labor services for the enterprise.
(Appeal Br., Claims App.)
Rejections on Appeal
The Examiner maintains, and Appellants appeal, the following
rejections:
I. Claims 1-11 and 13-24 stand rejected under 35
U.S.C. § 112, second paragraph, as being indefinite
for failing to particularly point out and distinctly
2
Appeal2014-007219
Application 13/386,402
claim the subject matter which the applicant regards
as the invention.
II. Claims 1, 4, 5, 7, 8, 10, 11, 13, 14, and21 stand
rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Ganesan (US 2004/0153376 Al,
pub. Aug. 5, 2004), Nagar (US 2006/0053063 Al,
pub. Mar. 9, 2006), and Sinclair (US 2010/0125486
Al, pub. May 20, 2010).
III. Claims 2, 3, 6, and 9 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a) as being unpatentable over Ganesan, Nagar,
Sinclair, and Hoskin (US 2004/0162763 Al, pub.
Aug. 19, 2004).
IV. Claims 15-20 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a) as being unpatentable over Ganesan, Nagar,
Sinclair, and Brishke (US 2004/0267606 Al, pub.
Dec. 30, 2004).
V. Claims 22-24 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a)
as being unpatentable over Ganesan, Nagar, and
Sinclair, and Denton (US 2005/0171826 Al, pub.
Aug. 4, 2005).
ANALYSIS
Rejection I (Indefiniteness)
Claims 1-11and13-24
Appellants' Appeal Brief does not contain any arguments contesting
the Examiner's rejection of claims 1-11 and 13-24 under 35 U.S.C. § 112,
3
Appeal2014-007219
Application 13/386,402
second paragraph, and Appellants only make arguments with respect thereto
for the first time in their Reply Brief. As such, the appeal of the Examiner's
rejection of claims 1-11 and 13-24 under 35 U.S.C. § 112, second
paragraph, is waived. See 37 C.F.R. 41.37(c)(l)(iv) (arguments not set forth
in the appeal brief are waived). For this reason, we sustain the Examiner's
rejection of claims 1-11 and 13-24 under 35 U.S.C. § 112, second
paragraph.
Rejections II-IV (Obviousness)
Independent claim 1 and dependent claims 2-7, 21, and 23
We are unpersuaded by Appellants' argument that Ganesan fails to
disclose "capacity factors," "supplier share limits," and "sensitivity analysis
scenarios," as recited in independent claim 1, i.e.,
wherein capacities are determined by historical business
transaction volume of a supplier with the enterprise during a time
period multiplied by an adjustment factor that reflects future
performance capacity of the supplier, and wherein capacity
factors and supplier share limits are parameterized as sensitivity
analysis scenarios
(Appeal Br. 6-7). Appellants argue that the Examiner has not made
adequate findings with respect thereto (id.). However, the Examiner finds
that Ganesan (i-fi-f 13--47 and 52-58) discloses the use of "capacity factors,"
"supplier share limits," historical spending, and other supply-related data,
and relies on Sinclair (i-fi-f 11-13, 31, 37, 63, and 79) for the teaching that
supply data may be parameterized and used to create "sensitivity analysis
scenarios." We agree. For example, Ganesan describes a maximum
quantity (i-f 13), a maximum spending amount (i-fi-f 14, 53), a maximum
quantity percentage of the suppliers for a part, site, and time period
4
Appeal2014-007219
Application 13/386,402
(if 54 ). This disclosure meets the "capacity factors" and "supplier share
limits" limitations. For example, Sinclair discloses that supply chain data
may be used to generate simulation files (if 13), which may be set to current
conditions (if 63), or additional simulations may be performed (if 79). This
disclosure meets the "sensitivity analysis scenarios" limitation. We agree
with the Examiner that it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary
skill to perform the simulation analysis of Sinclair on the supply data of
Ganesan for the reasons stated by the Examiner, i.e., to allow organizations
to predict and analyze how changes in supply chain parameters will impact
the operation or performance of the supply chain (see Final Act. 9).
Therefore, we sustain the Examiner's rejection under§ 103(a) of
independent claim 1.
Although placed under different headings, Appellants do not argue the
patentability of claims 2-7, 21, and 23 separately from that of claim 1, from
which they depend. We sustain the Examiner's rejection under§ 103(a) of
claims 2-7, 21, and 2 3, for similar reasons as for independent claim 1.
Independent claims 8 and 15 and dependent claims 9-11, 13, 14, and 16--20
Appellants' arguments for claims 8 and 15 are similar to those for
independent claim 1. We sustain the Examiner's rejection under§ 103(a) of
independent claims 8 and 15, for similar reasons as for independent claim 1.
Appellants do not argue the Examiner's rejection of claims 9-11, 13,
14, and 16-20 separately from claims 8 and 15, from which they each
depend. We sustain the Examiner's rejection of claims 9-11, 13, 14, and
16-20 for the same reasons as for independent claims 8 and 15.
5
Appeal2014-007219
Application 13/386,402
Rejection V (Obviousness)
Dependent claims 22 and 24
Appellants argue that Denton fails to disclose a "two stage approach"
where "a solution to a first stage is multiplied by a user input consolidation
relaxation factor," as recited by dependent claim 22,
selecting suppliers and allocating category demands among the
selected suppliers using a two stage approach for procurement
optimization, wherein a solution to a first stage is multiplied by
a user input consolidation relaxation factor and input to a second
stage
(Appeal Br., Claims App'x). Appellants assert that Denton discloses
relaxation of constraints but does not disclose a multiplier, and argue that the
Examiner erred in finding that Denton effectively discloses a multiplier of
zero (Appeal Br. 10-11). The Examiner determines that when Denton
discloses temporarily relaxing variables (i-fi-f 70-72), the variables are
effectively set to zero.
Denton discloses that basic variables are not set to zero during
development (i-fi-f 70-72), but does not explicitly disclose setting other
variables to zero. Denton (i-f 77) states that the invention relaxes variables by
setting the upper and lower bounds on the relaxable constraints to "+infinity
and infinity" respectively. As such, Denton does not disclose the use of a
"relaxation multiplier," as recited by dependent claim 22.
Therefore, we do not sustain the Examiner's rejection under§ 103(a)
of claim 22, and of claim 24, which depends therefrom.
6
Appeal2014-007219
Application 13/386,402
DECISION
The decision of the Examiner to reject claims 1-11 and 13-24 under
35 U.S.C. § 112, second paragraph, is affirmed.
The decision of the Examiner to reject claims 1-11, 13-21, and 23
under§ 103(a) is affirmed.
The decision of the Examiner to reject claims 22 and 24 under
§ 103(a) is reversed.
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-IN-PART
7