RE: [ubl-dev] OB10 patent on common e-invoicing pattern?

[Fulton Wilcox <fulton.wilcox@coltsnecksolutions.com>]

Mikkel,

I could not read your links because a log-on popped up. I did check out
patent application 20020067723 on the USPO site.

You do highlight a significant concern although the concern is probably
better addressed to the many entities involved specifically in the
translation of electronic invoices, which very well might impact for example
vertical applications from SAP, Oracle, etc. 

The patent application (from 2002) does not reference an existing
instantiation, but instead is apparently a purely business method patent
application. It describes a conceptual describes a single point of
translation, with an "apparatus" determining how to translate an inbound
invoice based on from whom it is received and how to translate the inbound
document based on to whom it is going. It references storing the document in
an intermediate form although that feature is characteristic of many-to-many
translators.

It uses language that has little utilization in eBusiness to describe
invoice document translation. "A communication routing system receives
signals from sources thereof and converts them into a standard format, using
mapping definitions selected on the basis of their sources. Signals in the
standard format are converted into output formats according to their
destinations using mapping definitions selected on the basis of their
destinations." 
http://appft.uspto.gov/netacgi/nph-Parser?Sect1=PTO2&Sect2=HITOFF&p=1&u=%2Fn
etahtml%2FPTO%2Fsearch-bool.html&r=6&f=G&l=50&co1=AND&d=PG01&s1=%22Communica
tion+Routing+Apparatus%22&OS="Communication+Routing+Apparatus"&RS="Communica
tion+Routing+Apparatus"

Presumably, its principal claim centers on "translation" given that email
has long done "routing" (and EDI was built on top of email communications).

Based on the application text, tt appears to apply only to some central
in/out third party processing service.

The resulting patent, if approved, apparently would not apply if the sender
(or the sender's agent) does translation into, say, UBL, and at the far end
the receiver (or the receiver's agent) does translation from UBL into the
receiver's chosen output. 

Also, it apparently would not apply if in-network translation was determined
not by something specifically associated with the originator or receiver
point, but instead by something embedded the document – e.g. information as
to UBL invoice version or ANSI EDI version, etc.

From what I saw online, the applicants' U.S. Patent Application does not
reference the existence of prior art although clearly invoice translation
processes have been around for a long time – back into the early 1980s.
Hundreds of EDI translator packages and in-network translation services
available in the 1980s and 1990s provided invoice translation. 

Given that the application does not cite prior art, it does not assert its
differences nor in what respect it offers an improvement.

The application does not claim that its method for the translation of
invoices is in any way unique as compared to, for example, the translation
of purchase orders or ship notices or any other structured document. It does
not assert nor demonstrate that some previously existing translation process
working to translate POs, etc. would not work equally well for invoices. 

The U.S. Patent Office has initiated a peer review service which might be
helpful to OASIS in watch for patents that involve standards domains. - see
http://www.peertopatent.org/ 


					Fulton Wilcox
					Colts Neck Solutions LLC

 






________________________________________
From: Mikkel Hippe Brun [mailto:mhb@schemaworks.com] 
Sent: Saturday, June 06, 2009 8:36 AM
To: ubl-dev@lists.oasis-open.org
Subject: [ubl-dev] OB10 patent on common e-invoicing pattern?

Hello ubl-dev,
 
OB10 has received a patent on an "Communication routing apparatus" (US
patent and European patent). The patent describes a middleware product (e.g.
an ESB) where the ESB acts as an intermediary messaging hub between many
IT-systems. It basically describes protocol conversion and content
conversion of e-invoices between 1) senders 2) the hub and 3) receivers. The
characteristics of the OB10 patent are that static and dynamic data is added
to the input protocol and the input content.
 
I my view this is standard functionality in many middleware products and
most ESB's. I also believe that the described pattern of transformations of
protocols and content describes exactly what Value Added Network Operators
has been making a business on for the last 20+ years. The "VA" (Value Added)
in the VAN acronym - is to do transformations on protocols and contents like
it is described in the patent. 
 
There is less than 7 weeks to oppose the patent. I therefore urge suppliers
of Middleware products and service providers to send an opposition to the
patent. 
 
I have written a blog post with my interpretation of the patent.
http://bit.ly/JxvZX 
I have also written a post where I am collecting evidence to be used in a
notice of opposition. http://bit.ly/l0zBq
See also the patent at the European Patent Office: http://bit.ly/Kh95m 
 
Best regards
Mikkel Hippe Brun
Technical Director @ PEPPOL.eu
Cheif Consultant @ The Danish National IT and Telecom Agency