Ex Parte Puri et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Sep 24, 2018

12130037 (P.T.A.B. Sep. 24, 2018)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
12/130,037 05/30/2008
74739 7590 09/26/2018
Potomac Law Group, PLLC (Oracle International)
8229 Boone Boulevard
Suite 430
Vienna, VA 22182
Srinivasulu Puri
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.
20 ll -0072USO 1 3186
EXAMINER
GUILIANO, CHARLES A
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
3623
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
09/26/2018 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):
patents@potomaclaw.com
bgoldsmith@potomaclaw.com
eofficeaction@appcoll.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte SRINIV ASULU PURI, SRIKANTH KARIMISETTY,
SAVITADURGADA, PAWANKUMAR, and
SUSRUTH DODD AP ANENI
Appeal2017-003719
Application 12/130,037
Technology Center 3600
Before JEAN R. HOMERE, JEREMY J. CURCURI, and
SHARON PENICK, Administrative Patent Judges.
CURCURI, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
Appellants appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Examiner's
rejection of claims 1-11, 16, 17, 21, 22, 26-30, and 32-36. See Final Act. 1.
Claims 12-15, 18-20, 23-25, and 31 have been canceled. Claims App'x.
We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
Claims 1-11, 16, 17, 21, 22, 26-30, and 32-36 are rejected under
35 U.S.C. § 101 as directed to a judicial exception without significantly
more. Final Act. 9-10.
Appeal2017-003719
Application 12/130,037
Claims 1-11, 16, 17, 21, 22, 26-30, and 32-36 are rejected under pre-
AIA 35 U.S.C. § I03(a) as obvious over D'Elena (US 2003/0182178 Al;
Sept. 25, 2003), Roberts (US 7,827,041 B2; Nov. 2, 2010), Ng (US
2003/0078808 Al; Apr. 24, 2003), and Jung (US 2010/0031351 Al; Feb. 4,
2010). Final Act. 11-27.
We affirm.
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Appellants' claimed subject matter relates to "verifying the
competence of operators at various stages of the manufacturing process."
Spec. ,r 1. Claim 1 is illustrative and reproduced below:
1. A system, comprising:
a plurality of material handling devices coupled to a network;
a computer, coupled to a database, including one or more input/output
("I/0") devices configured to receive information from a user and provide
information to the user; a network interface in communication with the
material handling devices; and a processing device configured to:
set up and store, in the database, competence profiles for at
least two operators in the manufacturing facility, the competence profiles
including at least one competency and an associated proficiency level value,
the competency relating to an operation, and the associated proficiency level
value identifying a level of proficiency for the competency selected from a
plurality of proficiency level values ranging from a least proficient value to a
most proficient value;
define and store, in the database, a plurality of material
handling stages in the manufacturing facility, each stage including at least
one action;
2
Appeal2017-003719
Application 12/130,037
define and store, in the database, a competency and an
associated minimum proficiency level value required for each action in each
material handling stage, the competency relating to the action, and the
associated minimum proficiency level value identifying a minimum level of
proficiency for the competency selected from the plurality of proficiency
level values;
set and store, in the database, whether an override is allowed for
each action in each material handling stage, the override comprising
allowing a particular action to be performed by an operator having a
competence profile that does not include the competency and the associated
minimum proficiency level value required for the particular action;
during each material handling stage, prior to a first operator
performing an action using one of the material handling devices:
query the database to verify whether the competency and
the associated minimum proficiency level value required for the action are
satisfied by the competence profile for the first operator; and
if the competency and the associated minimum
proficiency level value required for the action are not satisfied by the
competence profile for the first operator:
query the database to check whether the override is
allowed for the action;
if the action has been set to allow the override:
receive a request to override the competence
check from a second operator;
3
Appeal2017-003719
Application 12/130,037
query the database to verify whether the
competency and the associated minimum proficiency level value are
satisfied by the competence profile for the second operator; and
if the competency and the associated
minimum proficiency level value required for the action are satisfied by the
competence profile for the second operator, communicate, over the network,
an authorization to the material handling device to permit the first operator
to perform the action using the material handling device; and
if the action has not been set to allow the override,
communicate, over the network, a lack of authorization to the material
handling device to prevent the operation of the material handling device by
the first operator.
PRINCIPLES OF LAW
We review the appealed rejections for error based upon the issues
identified by Appellants, and in light of the arguments and evidence
produced thereon. Ex parte Frye, 94 USPQ2d 1072, 107 5 (BP AI 2010)
(precedential).
ANALYSIS
THE 35 U.S.C. § 101 REJECTION OF CLAIMS 1-11, 16, 17, 21, 22, 26-30, AND
32-36
Contentions
The Examiner concludes
The claimed invention is directed to non-statutory subject
matter because the claims as a whole, considering all claim
elements both individually and in combination, do not amount
to significantly more than an abstract idea. The Claims are
directed to the abstract idea of organizing human activities via
an algorithm scheme. The process of determining
4
Appeal2017-003719
Application 12/130,037
competencies, and overriding activities can be performed
mentally or in a computer and it is similar to the kind of
organizing human activity at issue in SmartGene. Although the
claims are not drawn to the same subject matter, the abstract
idea of managing competency analysis is similar to the abstract
idea of using rules to identify medical options (See
SmartGene ). Furthermore, using systemic determination to alter
party's interaction is similar to that of buySAFE. Therefore,
Applicant is claiming an abstract idea.
The additional elements or combination of elements in
the claims other than the abstract idea per se amounts to no
more than a mere instruction to implement the idea on a
computer. While the Claims further require a plurality of data
processing/ querying steps, these steps are generics computing
steps. For instance, the recited database is merely performing its
generic data storing and communication function. The claimed
devices and computers are merely serving as a background
framework to apply the abstract idea using their inherent and
generic functions. Viewing the claims as a whole, these
additional claim elements do not provide meaningful limitations
to transform the abstract idea into a patent eligible application
of the abstract idea such that the claims amount to significantly
more than the abstract idea itself.
Final Act. 9-10; see also Advisory Act. 2; Ans. 3-14.
Appellants present the following principal arguments:
1. The claims are not directed to an abstract idea. See App. Br. 8-
11; see also Reply Br. 2-5. "[T]he claimed invention clearly does not recite
'abstract mental processes of [ a material handling device operator operating
a machine], or 'mirror the mental processes that a [ material handling device
operator] performs,' rendering SmartGene inapplicable." App. Br. 10.
"[T]he claimed invention creates neither a contractual relationship nor
buySAFE[] 's transaction performance guaranty. Consequently, the final
Office Action's reliance on buySAFE is entirely misplaced." App. Br. 11.
5
Appeal2017-003719
Application 12/130,037
11.. The claims recite significantly more than an abstract idea. See
App. Br. 11-14; see also Reply Br. 5-7. The claims do not preempt
managing the behavior of the operators. See App. Br. 12. The claims define
the computer's participation. See App. Br. 13. The claims improve an
existing technological process. See App. Br. 13. The claims do not recite
activities previously known to the industry. See App. Br. 13-14.
Our Review
A patent may be obtained for "any new and useful process, machine,
manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement
thereof." 35 U.S.C. § 101. The Supreme Court has held that this provision
contains an important implicit exception: laws of nature, natural phenomena,
and abstract ideas are not patentable. Alice Corp. Pty. Ltd. v. CLS Bank Int 'l,
134 S.Ct. 2347, 2354 (2014); Gottschalkv. Benson, 409 U.S. 63, 67 (1972)
("Phenomena of nature, though just discovered, mental processes, and
abstract intellectual concepts are not patentable, as they are the basic tools of
scientific and technological work."). Notwithstanding that a law of nature or
an abstract idea, by itself, is not patentable, the application of these concepts
may be deserving of patent protection. Mayo Collaborative Services v.
Prometheus Labs., Inc., 566 U.S. 66, 71-72 (2012). In Mayo, the Court
stated that "to transform an unpatentable law of nature into a patent-eligible
application of such a law, one must do more than simply state the law of
nature while adding the words 'apply it."' Mayo, 566 U.S. at 72 ( citation
omitted).
In Alice, the Supreme Court reaffirmed the framework set forth
previously in Mayo "for distinguishing patents that claim laws of nature,
natural phenomena, and abstract ideas from those that claim patent-eligible
6
Appeal2017-003719
Application 12/130,037
applications of these concepts." Alice, 134 S.Ct. at 2355. The first step in the
analysis is to "determine whether the claims at issue are directed to one of
those patent-ineligible concepts." Id. If the claims are directed to a patent-
ineligible concept, then the second step in the analysis is to consider the
elements of the claims "individually and 'as an ordered combination'" to
determine whether there are additional elements that "'transform the nature
of the claim' into a patent-eligible application." Id. (quoting Mayo, 566 U.S.
at 79, 78). In other words, the second step is to "search for an 'inventive
concept'-i.e., an element or combination of elements that is 'sufficient to
ensure that the patent in practice amounts to significantly more than a patent
upon the [ineligible concept] itself."' Id. (quoting Mayo, 566 U.S. at 72-73).
"A claim that recites an abstract idea must include 'additional features' to
ensure 'that the [claim] is more than a drafting effort designed to
monopolize the [abstract idea].'" Id. at 2357 (quoting Mayo, 566 U.S. at 77-
78). The prohibition against patenting an abstract idea "cannot be
circumvented by attempting to limit the use of the formula to a particular
technological environment or adding 'insignificant post[-]solution activity.'"
Bilski v. Kappas, 561 U.S. 593, 610-11 (2010) (citation omitted). The Court
in Alice noted that "' [ s ]imply appending conventional steps, specified at a
high level of generality,' [was] not 'enough' [in Mayo] to supply the
'inventive concept.'" Alice, 134 S.Ct. at 2357 (quoting Mayo, 566 U.S. at
82-83, 77-78, and 72-73).
Step one: Are the claims at issue directed to a patent-ineligible concept?
Appellants' Specification describes the invention as follows:
The present disclosure describes systems, methods, and
associated software for verifying the competence of an operator
in a manufacturing facility. In one embodiment, among many, a
7
Appeal2017-003719
Application 12/130,037
system for verifying operator competence includes one or more
input/output devices, which are configured to receive
information from a user and provide information to the user.
The system also includes a processing device, which is
configured to enable the user to set up a competence profile of
an operator in the manufacturing facility. The processing device
is also configured to enable the user to define jobs related to
handling sensitive material at multiple material handling stages
in the manufacturing facility. In addition, the processing is
configured to assign training to the operator as needed to meet
industry guidelines and enable the user to define competence
levels required at each multiple material handling stage.
Spec. ,r 5.
Claim 1 is more specific than the description above, and is directed to
storing in a database: competence profiles for operators, competency
requirements for each action in each material handling stage, whether
override is allowed for each action in each material handling stage; and prior
to an operator performing an action: checking the operator's competency
against the requirements for the action, and if the requirements are not
satisfied, checking whether or not override is allowed for the action, and
checking an override requester's competency against the requirements for
the action. Put another way, claim 1 is directed to comparing operator profile
and competency requirements using rules to identify whether or not the
operator is permitted to perform an action. Thus, we conclude claim 1 's
various limitations are, like SmartGene, comparing new and stored
information and using rules to identify options. See Final Act. 9; see also
Ans. 6-8.
Contrary to Appellants' argument (i), we conclude the claim does
recite abstract mental processes that mirror the mental processes that a
material handling device operator performs, and SmartGene is on point. Put
8
Appeal2017-003719
Application 12/130,037
another way, operator profile and competency requirements are compared
using rules to identify whether or not the operator is permitted to perform an
action. Performing and enforcing the processes on a computer does not
make those processes less abstract.
Step two: Is there something else in the claims that ensures they are directed
to significantly more than a patent-ineligible concept?
Because claim 1 is directed to an abstract idea, the question to be
settled next, according to Alice, is whether claim 1 recites an element, or
combination of elements, that is enough to ensure that the claim is directed
to significantly more than the abstract idea.
Claim 1 recites "a plurality of material handling devices coupled to a
network" and "a computer." The claimed elements are generic, purely
conventional elements. Appellants' Specification confirms this. See Spec. ,r,r
29-36. For example, Appellants' Specification discloses "Processing device
12 may be a general-purpose or specific-purpose processor or
microcontroller." Spec. ,r 30. Thus, the claims do no more than require
generic computer elements to perform generic computer functions, rather
than improve computer capabilities. Put another way, looking beyond the
abstract idea of comparing operator profile and competency requirements
using rules to identify whether or not the operator is permitted to perform an
action, we do not see any inventive concept in the remaining claim
limitations individually or in combination. See Final Act. 4--5, 9-10;
Advisory Act. 2; Ans. 8-10. Claiming various combinations of
conventional computers is not enough to transform the idea into a patent-
eligible invention. See Alice, 134 S.Ct. at 2358 ("[T]he mere recitation of a
generic computer cannot transform a patent-ineligible abstract idea into a
patent-eligible invention.").
9
Appeal2017-003719
Application 12/130,037
Regarding Appellants' arguments (ii) relating to preemption, these
arguments do not show any error in the Examiner's findings and
conclusions. We recognize as a threshold matter that the Supreme Court has
described "the concern that drives this exclusionary principle [to statutory
patentability] as one of pre-emption." See Alice, 134 S. Ct. at 2354.
Characterizing preemption as a driving concern for patent eligibility,
however, is not the same as characterizing preemption as the sole test for
patent eligibility. As our reviewing court has explained: "questions on
preemption are inherent in and resolved by the [section] 101 analysis," and,
although "preemption may signal patent ineligible subject matter, the
absence of complete preemption does not demonstrate patent eligibility."
Ariosa Diagnostics, Inc. v. Sequenom, Inc., 788 F.3d 1371, 1379 (Fed. Cir.
2015); cf OIP Techs., Inc. v. Amazon.com, Inc., 788 F.3d 1359, 1362---63
(Fed. Cir. 2015) ("[T]hat the claims do not preempt all price optimization or
may be limited to price optimization in the e-commerce setting do not make
them any less abstract").
Regarding Appellants' further arguments (ii), as discussed above, the
various steps of the process performed by the computer are all part of the
abstract idea of operator profile and competency requirements being
compared using rules to identify whether or not the operator is permitted to
perform an action, and performing the processes on a computer does not
make those processes less abstract. In addition, we do not agree that the
claims improve an existing technological process, nor do we agree that the
claims recite activities previously unknown to the industry, because the
claims are directed to an abstract idea with the various steps of the processes
all being part of the abstract idea, performed using conventional computers.
10
Appeal2017-003719
Application 12/130,037
See Spec. ,r,r 29-36. Appellants are reminded that "the 'inventive concept'
[under step two of the Mayo/Alice test] cannot be the abstract idea itself' and
"Berkheimer ... leave[ s] untouched the numerous cases from this court
which have held claims ineligible because the only alleged 'inventive
concept' is the abstract idea." Berkheimer v. HP Inc., 890 F.3d 1369, 1374
(Fed. Cir. 2018) (Moore, J., concurring). "It has been clear since Alice that a
claimed invention's use of the ineligible concept to which it is directed
cannot supply the inventive concept that renders the invention 'significantly
more' than that ineligible concept." BSG Tech LLC v. Buyseasons, Inc., 899
F.3d 1281, 1290 (Fed. Cir. 2018). We therefore agree with the Examiner
that the computer functions recited in the claims were in fact generic, and
are met by numerous case law establishing that using a generic computer to
expedite and automate processes traditionally performed manually or that
are otherwise abstract is a well-understood, routine, and conventional use of
such computers. Ans. 9-10, see, e.g., Intellectual Ventures I LLC v.
5}ymantec Cmp., 838 F.3d 1307, 1321 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (utilizing an
intermediary computer to forward information); Bancorp Servs., L.LC'. v.
Sun Life /1ssurance Co.~ 687 F.3d 1266~ 1278 (Fed. Cir. 2012) ('"'fhe
computer required by some of Bancorp~s claims is emp1oyed only for its
most basic function, the perfonnance of repetitive calculations, and as such
does not impose meaningful limits on the scope of those claims.'~).
Appellants are further reminded that "relying on a computer to perform
routine tasks more quickly or more accurately is insufficient to render a
claim patent eligible." OIP Techs., Inc. v. Amazon.com, Inc., 788 F.3d 1359,
1363 (Fed. Cir. 2015) (citing Alice Corp., 134 S. Ct. at 2359 ("use ofa
computer to create electronic records, track multiple transactions, and issue
11
Appeal2017-003719
Application 12/130,037
simultaneous instructions" is not an inventive concept)). Therefore, the
functions recited in claim 1 do not add any meaningful limitations beyond
generally linking the abstract idea to the particular technological
environment.
Conclusion
We sustain the Examiner's rejection under 35 U.S.C. § 101 of claim 1.
We also sustain the Examiner's rejection under 35 U.S.C. § 101 of claims 3-
5, 7-11, 14, 16-18, and 20-26, which are not separately argued with
particularity. See App. Br. 7-14; see also Reply Br. 2-7.
THE OBVIOUSNESS REJECTION OF CLAIMS 1-11, 16, 17, 21, 22, 26-30, AND
32-36 OVER D'ELENA, ROBERTS, NG, AND JUNG
Contentions
The Examiner finds the combination of D'Elena, Roberts, Ng, and
Jung teaches all limitations of claim 1. Final Act. 11-18.
In particular, the Examiner finds D 'Elena teaches "a competency and
an associated minimum proficiency level value required for each action in
each uob ], the competency relating to the action, and the associated
minimum proficiency level value identifying a minimum level of proficiency
for the competency selected from the plurality of proficiency level values"
as recited in claim 1. See Final Act. 12-13; see also Ans. 15-17. The
Examiner finds Roberts teaches applying operator competency in a
manufacturing environment ("material handling stages" as recited in claim
1). See Final Act. 13-14; see also Ans. 17-18.
In particular, the Examiner finds Ng teaches "if the competency and
the associated minimum proficiency level value required for the action are
12
Appeal2017-003719
Application 12/130,037
satisfied by the competence profile for the second operator" permit the first
operator to perform the action as recited in claim 1. See Final Act. 16; see
also Ans. 18-20. The Examiner finds Jung teaches the devices coupled to a
network ("communicate, over the network, an authorization to the material
handling device to permit the first operator to perform the action using the
material handling device" as recited in claim 1. See Final Act. 17-18; see
also Ans. 20-21.
Appellants present the following principal arguments:
1. The prior art does not teach
a competency and an associated minimum proficiency level
value required for each action in each material handling stage,
the competency relating to the action, and the associated
minimum proficiency level value identifying a minimum level
of proficiency for the competency selected from the plurality of
proficiency level values [ ranging from a least proficient value
to a most proficient value]
as recited in claim 1. See App. Br. 14--16. D'Elena discloses an employee's
proficiency rating, but "is entirely silent with respect to requiring that a job
assignment have a particular minimum proficiency rating." App. Br 15; see
also Reply Br. 8 ("D'Elena's 'proficiency levels' are text-based
descriptions"). Roberts discloses employees having a particular skill level,
but "is entirely silent with respect to defining 'skill levels' as particular
proficiency level values ranging from a least proficient value to a most
proficient value." App. Br. 15; see also Reply Br. 8 ("Similar to D'Elena's
'proficiency levels,' Roberts' 'skill level' is a text-based description").
"[T]his aspect of the obviousness rejection suffers from the influence of
impermissible hindsight." App. Br. 15.
11. The prior art does not teach
13
Appeal2017-003719
Application 12/130,037
if the competency and the associated mm1mum proficiency
level value required for the action are satisfied by the
competence profile for the second operator, communicate, over
the network, an authorization to the material handling device to
permit the first operator to perform the action using the material
handling device
as recited in claim 1. See App. Br. 16-17. "Ng simply discloses that an
alarm/alert may be overridden by a supervisor badge-scan" without verifying
the supervisors proficiency level. App. Br. 16.
Appellants observe that rather than fitting together the existing
pieces of a puzzle disclosed by these references, the final Office
Action is impermissibly creating a new piece of the puzzle that
is not disclosed by these references, i.e., 'verifying a
supervisor's proficiency level,' using the claimed invention as a
roadmap.
App. Br. 17.
Our Review
Appellants' arguments do not show any error in the contested findings
of the Examiner. We adopt as our own (1) the findings and reasons set forth
by the Examiner in the action from which this appeal is taken and (2) the
reasons set forth by the Examiner in the Examiner's Answer in response to
Appellants' Appeal Brief. We concur with the conclusions reached by the
Examiner. We highlight the following for emphasis.
D'Elena, for example, discloses
A system and method for skill proficiencies acquisitions
is presented. Job roles are compared with employee skill
profiles to determine which skills a corresponding employee
needs developed. A skill map is generated which includes skill
development activity options. Skill development activity
options may include attending a seminar, reading a book, or
participating in a mentoring program. An employee selects a
skill development activity that is suitable to his work routine
14
Appeal2017-003719
Application 12/130,037
and learning style. A skill proficiency rating is determined after
the conclusion of the skill development activity. The new skill
and proficiency rating are recorded in the employee's skill
profile.
D'Elena Abstract. D'Elena further discloses "Skill profile 140 may include
levels of proficiency for individual skills (i.e. acquired, applied, mastered,
etc.)." D'Elena ,r 39. Thus, D'Elena teaches competency profiles for
operators. D'Elena further discloses "Skill profiles (skill profile 140) of each
employee may be compared with a 'java application programmer' job role."
D'Elena ,r 40. Thus, D'Elena teaches competency profiles for jobs (actions).
Regarding values ranging from a least proficient value to a most
proficient value, D'Elena describes a skill level as no skill, acquired,
applied, and mastered. D'Elena Fig. 12. Thus, D'Elena teaches competency
selected from a plurality of proficiency level values ranging from a least
proficient value to a most proficient value.
Thus, D 'Elena teaches "a competency and an associated minimum
proficiency level value required for each action in each Liob ], the
competency relating to the action, and the associated minimum proficiency
level value identifying a minimum level of proficiency for the competency
selected from the plurality of proficiency level values" ranging from a least
proficient value to a most proficient value as recited in claim 1.
Regarding the "job" being a "material handling stage" as recited in
claim 1, Roberts discloses
The scheduling method 500 according to the invention is
disclosed below in the context of providing pharmacy services,
namely fulfilling and dispensing drug prescriptions, and is
particularly suited for scheduling/staffing a stage-by-stage or
compartmentalized workflow or process, such as that described
above with respect to processing drug prescriptions, whereby
15
Appeal2017-003719
Application 12/130,037
various stages of the workflow/process require different skill
levels.
Roberts 22:36-43. Thus, Roberts discloses the "job" being a "material
handling stage" as recited in claim 1.
Thus, we find the combined disclosures of D 'Elena and Roberts teach
"a competency and an associated minimum proficiency level value required
for each action in each material handling stage, the competency relating to
the action, and the associated minimum proficiency level value identifying a
minimum level of proficiency for the competency selected from the plurality
of proficiency level values" ranging from a least proficient value to a most
proficient value as recited in claim 1.
Contrary to Appellants' argument (i), as explained above, D'Elena
does teach a job rating. See D'Elena ,r 40 Uava application programmer job
role establishes a minimum proficiency level value required for the role).
Regarding skill ranges, as explained above, D 'Elena teaches the recited
proficiency level values. D'Elena Fig. 12 (no skill or acquired is least
proficient, mastered is most proficient). We likewise disagree with
Appellants that the Examiner's proposed combination of references is a
product of impermissible hindsight because the Examiner articulates a
reason for combing D'Elena and Roberts that is rational on its face and
supported by evidence drawn from the record. See Final Act. 14 ( citing
Roberts 6:55---60).
Further, contrary to Appellants' argument (ii), the prior art does teach
if the competency and the associated minimum proficiency
level value required for the action are satisfied by the
competence profile for the second operator, communicate, over
the network, an authorization to the material handling device to
16
Appeal2017-003719
Application 12/130,037
permit the first operator to perform the action using the material
handling device
as recited in claim 1.
Ng, for example, discloses "If an operator is not authorized to handle
an alarm/alert, he can override the restriction by getting the approval of any
supervisor, in the form of a badge-scan." Ng ,r 111.
Regarding the further aspect of verifying the supervisor's proficiency
level, D 'Elena teaches competency profiles for operators and competency
profiles for jobs. D'Elena ,r,r 39--40.
The argued claim limitation in Appellants' argument (ii) is taught
when the teachings of the references are combined. See Final Act 16-17.
The Examiner articulates a reason for combing Ng with D'Elena and
Roberts that is rational on its face and supported by evidence drawn from the
record. See Final Act. 16-17; see also Roberts 9:60-63 ("a registered
pharmacist (RPh) must become involved to review the DUR 133 and to
either override the issue or negative DUR 134 in the pharmacy's system or
contact a prescriber/doctor 135 for further consultation.")
We, therefore, sustain the Examiner's rejection of claim 1. We also
sustain the Examiner's rejection of claims 2-11, 16, 17, 21, 22, 26-30, and
32-36, which are not separately argued with particularity. See App. Br. 14--
17; see also Reply Br. 7-9.
ORDER
The Examiner's decision rejecting claims 1-11, 16, 17, 21, 22, 26-30,
and 32-36 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).
17
Appeal2017-003719
Application 12/130,037
AFFIRMED
18