Ubaldo Bilello et al.Download PDFPatent Trials and Appeals BoardOct 29, 20202019006303 (P.T.A.B. Oct. 29, 2020) Copy Citation UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE 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 APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE FIRST NAMED INVENTOR ATTORNEY DOCKET NO. CONFIRMATION NO. 13/407,627 02/28/2012 Ubaldo G. Bilello AUS920120020US1 4322 82531 7590 10/29/2020 Lieberman & Brandsdorfer, LLC IBM - Austin 802 Still Creek Lane Gaithersburg, MD 20878 EXAMINER AUSTIN, JAMIE H ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 3683 MAIL DATE DELIVERY MODE 10/29/2020 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 UBALDO G. BILELLO, HANS-JUERGEN EICKELMANN, RICARDO L. FABRIZE, LOUIS R. FERRETTI JR., UDO KLEEMANN, JEFFREY W. MILES, MICHAEL S. O’LEARY, SHARMILA S. TILWALLI, and KAREN N. TOGER Appeal 2019-006303 Application 13/407,627 Technology Center 3600 ____________ Before MICHAEL C. ASTORINO, NINA L. MEDLOCK, and KENNETH G. SCHOPFER, Administrative Patent Judges. SCHOPFER, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL Pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 134(a), Appellant1 appeals from the Examiner’s decision to reject claims 1–24. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). We AFFIRM. 1 We use the word “Appellant” to refer to “applicant” as defined in 37 C.F.R. § 1.42. Appellant identifies the real party in interest as International Business Machines Corporation. Appeal Br. 3. Appeal 2019-006303 Application 13/407,627 2 BACKGROUND The Specification states that the “invention relates to risk assessment and management of aspects of a supply chain” including “identification and management of risks in the supply chain, and deployment of risk mitigation.” Spec. ¶ 1. CLAIMS Claims 1, 9, and 17 are the independent claims on appeal. Claim 1 is illustrative of the appealed claims and recites: 1. A method comprising: generating, with a processor, one or more risk categories associated with one or more brand commodity supply chains for delivering a commodity into a brand, each brand commodity supply chain comprising an intermediate component supply chain and a final assembly supply chain, wherein generation comprises identifying the risk categories for both the intermediate component supply chain and the final assembly supply chain; comparing disparate pieces of infom1ation associated with the generated risk categories; creating a single holistic image utilizing the disparate pieces of information including forming a visible relationship among disparate pieces of infom1ation and organizing the disparate pieces of information within the single holistic image; identifying, with the processor, at least a first supply chain of the one or more brand commodity supply chains for a risk assessment within the single holistic image; evaluating one or more risk categories of at least a first aspect of the first supply chain within the single holistic image, including performing an impact evaluation of each risk category of the at least first aspect of the first supply chain, the impact evaluation includes to transform the single holistic image into a likelihood of disruption of the on-time delivery of the commodity including determining a likelihood of impact and a meantime-to-repair; Appeal 2019-006303 Application 13/407,627 3 performing an aggregation of risk elements associated with the one or more brand commodity supply chains, including aggregating each impact evaluation of the first supply chain, wherein the performed aggregation includes transforming each individual likelihood of disruption for each risk category into a single likelihood of disruption of the on-time delivery of the commodity based on all of the risk elements; maintaining on-time delivery of the commodity utilizing management of key risks in response to the evaluation and aggregation, including performing a risk mitigation plan to mitigate a risk identified to affect sustainability of the first supply chain; and a product of manufacture produced through performance of the risk mitigation plan. REJECTIONS 1. The Examiner rejects claims 1–24 under 35 U.S.C. § 112, second paragraph, as indefinite. 2. The Examiner rejects claims 1–24 under 35 U.S.C. § 101 as directed to a judicial exception without significantly more. 3. The Examiner rejects claims 1–24 under 35 U.S.C. § 112, first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. DISCUSSION Indefiniteness The Examiner determines that the limitation “a product of manufacture produced through performance of the risk mitigation plan” in each of the independent claims “renders the claim indefinite because it is unclear what specifically the ‘a product of manufacture’ is.” Final Act. 17. The Examiner explains that this limitation is indefinite in the context of the category of invention being claimed in each of the independent claims. Id. Appeal 2019-006303 Application 13/407,627 4 at 17–19. With respect to claim 1, the Examiner determines that the claim is a method claim and the last limitation of “a product of manufacture . . .” appears to be directed to a different statutory class of inventions, i.e., a product. Id. at 17–18. With respect to claim 9, the Examiner finds that the claim recites a system “comprising a functional unit in communication with the memory, the functional unit comprising tools to support risk assessment, the tools comprising ‘a product of manufacture.’” Id. at 18. The Examiner determines that the product of manufacture would not be a tool as recited in claim 9. Id. Finally, with respect to claim 17, the Examiner determines that the claim recites a computer program product and it is not clear how execution of a program causes the computer to create or perform “a product of manufacture.” Id. The Examiner notes that “[t]here appears to be language missing in this amended limitation to the claim. A product of manufacture would not be produced through performance of the risk mitigation plan as claimed.” Id. at 18–19. In response, Appellant asserts only that a proposed amendment was filed that overcomes these rejections “and more clearly recites Appellant’s limitations for each of the three differing statutory categories,” but that amendment was not entered. Appeal Br. 26. We find that the limitation “a product of manufacture produced through performance of the risk mitigation plan” creates ambiguity in each of the independent claims for the reasons provided by the Examiner. See Final Act. 17–19. Accordingly, we sustain this rejection. Remaining Rejections In view of our determination that claims 1–24 are indefinite, and because we find that an analysis of the remaining rejections would Appeal 2019-006303 Application 13/407,627 5 necessarily be based on a speculative assumption as to the meaning of the claims, we do not sustain the rejections under 35 U.S.C. § 112, first paragraph and § 101. See In re Steele, 305 F.2d 859, 862-63 (CCPA 1962). However, it should be understood that our decision in this regard is pro forma and based solely on the indefiniteness of the claimed subject matter, and does not reflect in any way on the adequacy of the Examiner’s analysis in rejecting the claims. CONCLUSION We AFFIRM the rejection of claims 1–24 under 35 U.S.C. § 112, second paragraph. We pro forma REVERSE the rejections of claims 1–24 under 35 U.S.C. §§ 101, 112, first paragraph. In summary: Claims Rejected 35 U.S.C. § Basis Affirmed Reversed 1–24 101 Eligibility 1–24 1–24 112, first paragraph Written Description 1–24 1–24 112, second paragraph Indefiniteness 1–24 Overall Outcome 1–24 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). AFFIRMED Copy with citationCopy as parenthetical citation