Ex Parte 5806063 et al

Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences

Mar 29, 2010

90006541 (B.P.A.I. Mar. 29, 2010)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
____________

BEFORE THE BOARD OF PATENT APPEALS
AND INTERFERENCES
____________

Ex parte DICKENS-SOEDER2000, LLC
____________

Appeal 2008-004652
Reexamination Control Nos. 90/005,727; 90/005,592; 90/005,628; and
90/006,541 (merged)
Reissue Application No. 09/512,592 (merged)
U.S. Patent No. 5,806,063
Technology Center 2100
____________

Decided: March 29, 2010
____________

Before ROMULO H. DELMENDO, SCOTT R. BOALICK, and
KEVIN F. TURNER, Administrative Patent Judges.

BOALICK, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON REQUEST FOR RECONSIDERATION

Appeal 2008-004652
Reexamination Control Nos. 90/005,727; 90/005,592; 90/005,628; and
90/006,541 (merged)
Reissue Application No. 09/512,592 (merged)
U.S. Patent No. 5,806,063

2
Appellant requests that we reconsider our Decision entered March 16,
2009 ("Dec."), wherein we affirmed one or more rejections of claims 1-76.
The Request for Rehearing has been considered. We modify the
findings of fact (FF) in the original Decision to make the following four
additions:
A. At page 14 of the Decision, FF 1 is modified to add the following
after the last sentence:
The Specification states that "[t]he present invention thus
provides an efficient approach to converting and utilizing
symbolic date representations in databases, which allows
automatic processing of dates ranging from before to after the
year 2000." ('063 patent, col. 2, ll. 21-24.) "The large number
of dates represented in some databases may thereby be readily
processed and utilized." ('063 patent, col. 2, ll. 24-26 (emphasis
added).) "Other features and advantages of the present
invention will be apparent from the following more detailed
description of the preferred embodiment, . . . . The scope of the
invention is not, however, limited to this preferred
embodiment." ('063 patent, col. 2, ll. 26-32.)

B. At page 18 of the Decision, FF 8 is modified to add the following
as the last full sentence on page 18:
"For example, the date 12/15/93 (Dec. 15, 1993) is represented
as 19931215 and the date 12/15/00 (Dec. 15, 2000) as
20001215. A straightforward numerical sort of date data fields
expressed in this form produces an accurate chronological
ordering." ('063 patent, col. 3, ll. 44-48.)

Appeal 2008-004652
Reexamination Control Nos. 90/005,727; 90/005,592; 90/005,628; and
90/006,541 (merged)
Reissue Application No. 09/512,592 (merged)
U.S. Patent No. 5,806,063

3
C. At page 32 of the Decision, FF 25 is modified to add the following
after the last sentence:
In one example, Shaughnessy describes an application program
for a bank that performs a date comparison to determine if loan
payments are overdue. (Col. 4, l. 37 to col. 5, l. 3.)
Shaughnessy describes modifying the program to call a
subroutine that performs the date comparison and passing the
following to the subroutine: "today's date, the date next
payment is due, and a three byte parameter, the first byte of
which identifies the format of today's date, the second byte of
which identifies the format of the date next payment is due, and
the third byte of which is left available for a return code
indicative of a result of the comparison." (Col. 4, ll. 51-58.)
The account is indicated to be OK if the result from the
subroutine indicates that the next payment due date is greater
than today's date. (Col. 4, ll. 59-61.) "The subroutines which
perform the date operations can do so regardless of the format
of the dates to be operated on." (Col. 4, ll. 62-63.) Figure 8
shows an example of the steps that a modified computer system
performs in order to complete a date comparison operation.
(Col. 3, ll. 28-29; col. 8, l. 33 to col. 12, l. 19.) The call to the
subroutine 100 includes date parameters P1 and P2 (e.g., next
payment due date and today's date), and three byte parameter
P3. (Col. 9, ll. 44-53.) To facilitate performing the date
comparison operation 118, date parameters P1 and P2 are
converted depending upon their date format. For example,
prior to comparison step 118, P2 and P1 may be converted to a
four digit year format YYYYMMDD at steps 122 and 130
respectively. (Col. 11, l. 57 to col. 12, l. 12.) Upon completion
of the comparison 118, the subroutine returns the results of the
comparison to the program 132. (Col. 12, ll. 14-19.)

Appeal 2008-004652
Reexamination Control Nos. 90/005,727; 90/005,592; 90/005,628; and
90/006,541 (merged)
Reissue Application No. 09/512,592 (merged)
U.S. Patent No. 5,806,063

4
D. At page 36 of the Decision, FF 36 is modified to add the following
after the second sentence:
"The return format of the DTOS() function is not affected by
the SET DATE setting. It is this string representation of the
date that should be used for sorting and indexing dates, since
the dates will appear in chronological order." (Page 945.)

The Request for Rehearing is otherwise denied.
The following discussion addresses Appellant's arguments in the order
in which they are enumerated in the Request for Rehearing.

DISCUSSION

The Exhibit A Issue
Appellant requests that we "remand the application to the Examiner to
allow applicant to proceed to have Exhibit A made part of the issued patent
by the appropriate procedure." (Req. for Reh'g 3.) As previously discussed
in our Decision (Dec. 61-62), Appellant must obtain a certificate of
correction under 35 U.S.C. § 254 in order for Exhibit A to become part of
the Specification and Appellant has admitted that no such action has been
taken. The certificate of correction previously filed by Appellant merely
corrected two minor typographical errors. (Dec. 4.) The record
demonstrates that Appellant has been aware of a problem with the status of
Exhibit A since at least December 23, 2002. (Dec. 61.) Appellant has had
sufficient opportunity to add Exhibit A through a certificate of correction
and has not shown cause for remanding the appeal to add Exhibit A, even if
Appeal 2008-004652
Reexamination Control Nos. 90/005,727; 90/005,592; 90/005,628; and
90/006,541 (merged)
Reissue Application No. 09/512,592 (merged)
U.S. Patent No. 5,806,063

5
such a remand were within the scope of our authority, at this stage of the
proceedings. Accordingly, we decline to remand the appeal to the
Examiner.

The § 112 Rejection of Claims 16-25, 26-30, 31-33, 66, 67, and 72 Based
upon the Indefiniteness of "Collectively"

Appellant argues that our Decision erred in affirming the 35 U.S.C.
§ 112 rejection of claims 16-25, 26-30,1 31-33, 66, 67, and 72, which recite
the step of reformatting the symbolic representations for each date in the
database in order to facilitate "collectively further processing" the
reformatted symbolic representations. (Req. for Reh'g 3-8; see Dec. 67-73.)
According to Appellant, the "specification and claims clearly contemplates
that the reformatted symbolic representations of each symbolic
representation of a date in the database have been gathered into a mass, sum
or body whole, i.e., aggregated to facilitate further processing in the
aggregated form, i.e., for being 'collectively' further processed." (Req. for
Reh'g 3-4.) Citing various passages of the '063 patent, Appellant contends
that "[t]he specification of the Dickens patent, while not specifically using
the term 'collectively,' also clearly supports the concept of aggregating the
reformatted/converted date data symbolic representations prior to further

1 To the extent our Decision raised a new ground of rejection with respect to
claims 26-30 (see Dec. 67 & n. 21, 72-73), we assume Appellant is
requesting rehearing rather than asking that our Decision be denominated a
new ground to allow reopening of prosecution.
Appeal 2008-004652
Reexamination Control Nos. 90/005,727; 90/005,592; 90/005,628; and
90/006,541 (merged)
Reissue Application No. 09/512,592 (merged)
U.S. Patent No. 5,806,063

6
processing."2 (Req. for Reh'g 5.) "The meaning of the claims is that the
aggregated converted symbolic representation of the date data are sorted or
otherwise manipulated after each has been converted to the unambiguous
four digit simple representation." (Req. for Reh'g 7-8.)
Appellant's arguments fail to convince us that the Decision erred in
affirming the § 112 rejection. In particular, Appellant's arguments have not
convinced us that the Decision erred in concluding that the meaning of the
claimed step of reformatting in order to facilitate collectively further
processing the data is ambiguous. One of ordinary skill in the art would not
understand what is claimed when the claims are read in light of the
Specification.
For example, the '063 patent Specification does not require all dates in
the database to be reformatted prior to further processing of the date data,
contrary to Appellant's argument. (See FF 3, 8.) The '063 patent
Specification does not prohibit conversion of less than all dates in the
database and processing of the (fewer than all) dates which are converted.
(See FF 3, 8; Fig. 1.) The Specification provides an example of the
conversion and numeric sort of two dates stored in a database -- namely

2 Appellant also presents a new argument in the Request of Rehearing
detailing precisely how Exhibit A allegedly supports Appellant's
interpretation of the claim term "collectively" further processing. (Req. for
Reh'g 7.) In the Briefs, Appellant had merely made the unsupported
assertion that Exhibit A further supports Appellant's interpretation of the
claims, without any further explanation. Because this particular argument
regarding Exhibit A was not timely made in the Briefs, we will not consider
it now. See 37 C.F.R. § 41.52(a)(1).
Appeal 2008-004652
Reexamination Control Nos. 90/005,727; 90/005,592; 90/005,628; and
90/006,541 (merged)
Reissue Application No. 09/512,592 (merged)
U.S. Patent No. 5,806,063

7
December 15, 1993 and December 15, 2000. (FF 8; see also FF 3.) Also,
Figure 1 of the '063 patent shows these two dates, and only these two dates,
being reformatted with a century designator. The Specification of the '063
patent sheds no light on what is meant by reformatting to facilitate
collectively further processing the reformatted dates.
Thus, the Decision did not err in concluding that the claims are
indefinite because the claims do not give adequate notice of the boundaries
of protection involved.
In addition, we do not find Appellant's arguments, including the cited
portions of the '063 patent, to demonstrate that, as of the filing date of the
'063 patent, the inventors had possession of the claimed subject matter. For
example, while the passages of the '063 patent cited at pages 5 to 6 of the
Request for Rehearing describe sorting or otherwise manipulating data after
reformatting, they do not describe or show possession of reformatting the
data to facilitate collectively further processing the data, as claimed.
Accordingly, we find no error in either the § 112 rejection of claims
16-25, 26-30, 31-33, 66, 67, and 72 or in our affirmance of that rejection.

The Rejection of Claims 1-3, 5, 7, 9 and 10 - Shaughnessy/Hazama, First
Subsidiary Issue

Appellant argues that our Decision erred in finding that Shaughnessy
and Hazama teach or suggest "selecting a 10-decade window with a YA YB
value for the first decade of the window, YA YB being no later than the
earliest Y1 Y2 year designator in the database." (Req. for Reh'g 8-9; see
Appeal 2008-004652
Reexamination Control Nos. 90/005,727; 90/005,592; 90/005,628; and
90/006,541 (merged)
Reissue Application No. 09/512,592 (merged)
U.S. Patent No. 5,806,063

8
Dec. 85-89.) In particular, Appellant repeats the argument from the Briefs
that Shaughnessy does not take the earliest date in the database into account,
and instead "determines the starting date of the window without regard for
what dates may be in the database." (Req. for Reh'g 9.) Appellant also
repeats the argument that Shaughnessy "teaches away from setting the
beginning of the window ordering to the earliest date data in the
database."(Req. for Reh'g 9.)
Our response to these arguments is the same as that provided in our
Decision (Dec. 85-89). Specifically, Shaughnessy teaches determining the
end of the 100-year cycle, which necessarily determines the beginning of the
100-year cycle, by adding the number of years of future dating required to
the "starting date" of the window, and it would have been a matter of
common sense, as evidenced by Hazama, for one of ordinary skill in the art
to set these parameters such that the starting year for the window is less than
any date in the database. If these parameters were selected otherwise,
Shaughnessy would not operate correctly and would return incorrect results.
Moreover, as Appellant admits (Req. for Reh'g 9, n. 4), Hazama teaches that
it was known to select the starting year for the 10-decade window to be less
than any date in the database. As also explained in the Decision
(Dec. 91-92), we do not find Shaughnessy to teach away from Hazama.

Appeal 2008-004652
Reexamination Control Nos. 90/005,727; 90/005,592; 90/005,628; and
90/006,541 (merged)
Reissue Application No. 09/512,592 (merged)
U.S. Patent No. 5,806,063

9
The § 103 Rejection of Claims 1-3, 5, 7, 9 and 10 - Shaughnessy/Hazama,
Second and Third Subsidiary Issues

Appellant argues that our Decision erred in finding that Shaughnessy
and Hazama teach or suggest "determining a century designator C1 C2 for
each symbolic representation of a date in the database" and "reformatting the
symbolic representation of the date with the values C1 C2, Y1 Y2, M1 M2, and
D1 D2 to facilitate further processing of the dates." (Req. for Reh'g 9-14; see
Dec. 89-91.) In particular, Appellant argues (Req. for Reh'g 9-13) that the
Decision erroneously construed "each symbolic representation of a date in
the database" as encompassing a database with only two entries (see
Dec. 90). We do not agree.
Appellant contends that those skilled in the art would understand that
databases in need of the '063 patent's Y2K solutions would contain a large
number of entries, as indicated by the Specification and the prior art (Req.
for Reh'g 10-13). According to Appellant, a database with only two entries
would not need to use the solution disclosed by the '063 patent. (Req. for
Reh'g 10-13.)
As we noted in the Decision (Dec. 90), however, the plain language of
the claim places no restriction on the number of dates to be stored in the
database except that it arguably requires more than one date. This
interpretation is consistent with Specification. While it is true that the
Specification discloses that some databases contain a large number of dates
(FF 1), the Specification does not require the databases to contain a large
number of dates, or any number of dates for that matter. Just after disclosing
Appeal 2008-004652
Reexamination Control Nos. 90/005,727; 90/005,592; 90/005,628; and
90/006,541 (merged)
Reissue Application No. 09/512,592 (merged)
U.S. Patent No. 5,806,063

10
that some databases may contain a large number of dates, the Specification
then goes on to state that the scope of the invention is not limited to this
preferred embodiment. (FF 1.) In addition, the Specification provides an
example of the conversion and numeric sort of two dates stored in a database
-- namely December 15, 1993 and December 15, 2000. (FF 8; see also
FF 3.) Thus, under the broadest reasonable interpretation consistent with the
Specification, the database may contain only two dates.
Even assuming, for the sake of argument, that Appellant is correct and
the database must have many more than two entries, we agree with the
Examiner (Ans. 13-14) that it would have been obvious to determine a
century designator for converting each date in the database. As the
Examiner has correctly pointed out (Ans. 13-14), in the bank loan program
example of Shaughnessy that determines whether a loan payment is overdue
(FF 25), it would have been obvious to perform the described due date
processing for each loan in the database. In other words, having performed
the due date processing for one particular bank loan, it would have been
obvious to perform similar due date processing for all other bank loans in the
database. The Examiner has correctly observed that such batch processing
would be a matter of automation efficiency (Ans. 13), and it also would have
been a matter of common sense to determine whether any loan payment for
any loan in the database was overdue.
Appellant's arguments (Req. for Reh'g 13-14) concerning what the
subroutine returns to the main program are not convincing because, as
Appeal 2008-004652
Reexamination Control Nos. 90/005,727; 90/005,592; 90/005,628; and
90/006,541 (merged)
Reissue Application No. 09/512,592 (merged)
U.S. Patent No. 5,806,063

11
previously discussed here and in the Decision (Dec. 89-91), the subroutine
of Shaughnessy performs the disputed method steps.

The § 103 Rejection of Claims 1-3, 5, 7, 9 and 10 - Shaughnessy/Hazama,
Fourth Subsidiary Issue

Appellant repeats the argument (see Dec. 85) that "both Shaughnessy
and Hazama teach away and would have to be significantly modified in
theory of operation to teach or suggest the claimed subject matter of the
Dickens patent." (Req. for Reh'g 14.) We do not agree. Instead, as
explained in the Decision (Dec. 91-92), the Examiner has articulated a
reason with rational underpinnings for combining the teachings of
Shaughnessy and Hazama. We are not convinced that Shaughnessy and
Hazama teach away or would require significant modification in order to be
combined.
Appellant argues that "Shaughnessy cannot perform the claimed
process, and therefore, teaches away." (Req. for Reh'g 14.) However, we
have already explained how Shaughnessy performs the claimed process.
Appellant's arguments (Req. for Reh'g 14-15) about what the subroutine
returns to the main program are not convincing because, as previously
explained, the subroutine of Shaughnessy performs the disputed method
steps.
Although Appellant seems to argue (Req. for Reh'g 14-15) that
century designators must be determined for all dates in the database and all
dates must be reformatted prior to any further processing, such as a date
Appeal 2008-004652
Reexamination Control Nos. 90/005,727; 90/005,592; 90/005,628; and
90/006,541 (merged)
Reissue Application No. 09/512,592 (merged)
U.S. Patent No. 5,806,063

12
comparison, the claim language does not support such an interpretation.
While Appellant argues that the subroutine of Shaughnessy only operates on
two dates at a time (Req. for Reh'g 15), the claim language itself does not
prohibit such processing as performed by Shaughnessy's subroutine. For
example, the claim language does not prohibit Shaughnessy's subroutine
from sequentially stepping through each loan in the database and comparing
each loan due date in the database to today's date in order to determine if
each of the loans is overdue.

The Rejection of Claims 1-3 - Ohms/Hazama, First Subsidiary Issue

Appellant argues that "Ohms' teaching about the Gregorian (or Julian)
dates does not apply to date data actually stored in the database." (Req. for
Reh'g 16.) Instead, Appellant contends that Ohms teaches storing dates in
the database in Lilian format rather than in Gregorian or Julian format.
(Req. for Reh'g 18.) According to Appellant, in discussing "existing date
formats" in the Abstract (see FF 40), "Ohms is clearly talking about 'existing
date formats' as the Lilian format that can be used to solve the Y2K
problem." (Req. for Reh'g 16.) Appellant also argues that "Booth3 and
Ohms each describe the use of a windowing algorithm, but not in the
environment of the claimed subject matter." (Req. for Reh'g 18.) In
particular, Appellant argues that "Ohms uses a windowing algorithm to
enable the data entry into your date data format, also actually stores the date

3 Appellant's arguments relating to Booth are not relevant for this rejection.
Appeal 2008-004652
Reexamination Control Nos. 90/005,727; 90/005,592; 90/005,628; and
90/006,541 (merged)
Reissue Application No. 09/512,592 (merged)
U.S. Patent No. 5,806,063

13
data and manipulates the date data in unambiguous Lillian date format."
(Req. for Reh'g 19.) We do not agree.
As discussed in the Decision (Dec. 97-101), we do not find Ohms to
be restricted to storing dates in the Lilian format. Instead, Ohms makes clear
that dates may be stored in other formats, including the Gregorian format.
(FF 41, 45.) Among other things, Ohms teaches that dates are typically
displayed and stored in the Julian and Gregorian formats (FF 41), teaches
that concepts and formats of both Julian and Gregorian date formats will be
discussed (FF 41), and also teaches that it is not necessary to change date
formats in files (FF 45). Instead of changing date formats in files, the
program may be changed so that the implied century in a date is recognized
(FF 45). We do not agree with Appellant's argument that the abstract of
Ohms, in referring to "existing date formats," is actually referring to the
Lilian date. Instead, the abstract refers to the use of existing date formats as
a way to eliminate the need for "massive system modifications" and
discusses "[m]ethods of using existing date formats across century
boundaries." (Page 244.) Next, the abstract of Ohms states that the use of a
format called the Lilian date format will be introduced. Therefore, it is clear
that Ohms' discussion of "existing date formats" is not restricted to the Lilian
date format. In sum, the teachings of Ohms include and apply to
manipulating and storing dates in the Gregorian format.

Appeal 2008-004652
Reexamination Control Nos. 90/005,727; 90/005,592; 90/005,628; and
90/006,541 (merged)
Reissue Application No. 09/512,592 (merged)
U.S. Patent No. 5,806,063

14
The Rejection of Claims 1-3 - Ohms/Hazama, Second and Fourth Subsidiary
Issues

Appellant largely repeats the previously discussed arguments with
respect to Ohms and the Lilian date format (Req. for Reh'g 19-20). We do
not find these arguments persuasive for the reasons previously discussed.

The Rejection of Claim 5 - Shaughnessy/Hazama

Appellant argues that this rejection was affirmed in error by the
Decision "for the reasons discussed above regarding claim 1." (Req. for
Reh'g 20.) We do not agree for the reasons discussed above with respect to
claim 1.

The Rejection of Claim 5 - Ohms/Hazama

Appellant argues that this rejection was affirmed in error by the
Decision "for the reasons discussed above regarding claim 1." (Req. for
Reh'g 20.) We do not agree for the reasons discussed above with respect to
claim 1.

The Rejection of Claim 9 - Shaughnessy/Hazama

Appellant argues that our Decision (Dec. 103-104) erred in finding
that Shaughnessy teaches "storing the symbolic representations of dates and
their associated information back into the database." (Req. for Reh'g 20.)
We do not agree.
Appeal 2008-004652
Reexamination Control Nos. 90/005,727; 90/005,592; 90/005,628; and
90/006,541 (merged)
Reissue Application No. 09/512,592 (merged)
U.S. Patent No. 5,806,063

15
As explained in our Decision (Dec. 104), while the Examiner noted
that the teaching in Shaughnessy of storing the symbolic representations
back into the database would be more expensive, the Examiner correctly
found that it was a known and available technique, and also offered a
permanent solution despite the additional expense. Therefore, we find no
error in the Decision.

The Rejection of Claim 9 - Ohms/Hazama

Appellant largely repeats the previously discussed arguments with
respect to Ohms and the Lilian date format (Req. for Reh'g 21). We do not
find these arguments persuasive for the reasons previously discussed.

The Rejection of Claim 10 - Shaughnessy/Hazama

Appellant argues that this rejection was affirmed in error by the
Decision "[f]or the reasons noted above regarding claims 1 and 9." (Req. for
Reh'g 21.) We do not agree for the reasons discussed above with respect to
claims 1 and 9.

The Rejection of Claim 10 - Ohms/Hazama

Appellant largely repeats the previously discussed arguments with
respect to Ohms and the Lilian date format (Req. for Reh'g 21-22). We do
not find these arguments persuasive for the reasons previously discussed.

Appeal 2008-004652
Reexamination Control Nos. 90/005,727; 90/005,592; 90/005,628; and
90/006,541 (merged)
Reissue Application No. 09/512,592 (merged)
U.S. Patent No. 5,806,063

16
The Rejections of Claims 4 and 6 - Shaughnessy/Hazama/Booth, First
Subsidiary Issue

Appellant argues that our Decision erred in the finding that Booth
teaches or suggests "sorting the symbolic representation of dates." (Req. for
Reh'g 22-23.) According to Appellant, "Booth (FF 31) teaches storing and
manipulating the data in the database in integer format - each integer
representing a specific unique day . . . which necessarily is not year
ambiguous." (Req. for Reh'g 22.) We do not agree with Appellant's reading
of Booth.
While Booth does state that Clipper stores dates in such a way that
math operations can be performed on the dates (FF 31), we do not agree with
Appellant that Booth exclusively stores and manipulates dates in integer
format. For example, the date to string DTOS() function of Booth "takes a
date variable as a parameter and returns a string in the format:
YYYYMMDD" (FF 36) and "[t]he returned string can be used to arrange
dates in chronological sequence, regardless of the date format" (FF 36).
Booth also describes using the DTOS() function to create an index that
causes log entries in the database to appear in chronological sequence.
(FF 36.) If Appellant was correct that Booth stores and manipulates dates
exclusively in integer format, the described DTOS() function would not be
necessary since the comparisons and sorting could be undertaken directly
without first reformatting. This is confirmed by the statement in Booth that
the string, in the format YYYYMMDD, is used for sorting and indexing
since the dates appear in chronological order. (FF 36.)
Appeal 2008-004652
Reexamination Control Nos. 90/005,727; 90/005,592; 90/005,628; and
90/006,541 (merged)
Reissue Application No. 09/512,592 (merged)
U.S. Patent No. 5,806,063

17
In any event, the Examiner cited Booth for the teaching of sorting the
symbolic representations of dates (Office Action of October 27, 2004 at 16;
see Dec. 108). Booth describes an indexing function and also describes a
sorting function, using the Clipper SORT command, that physically
rearranges records in the database. (FF 37-39.)
Accordingly, we find no error in our Decision.
Appellant also presents the previously discussed arguments with
respect to Ohms and the Lilian date format (Req. for Reh'g 22-23). These
arguments are not relevant to the rejection over Shaughnessy, Hazama, and
Booth. To the extent Appellant meant to present these arguments with
respect to the rejection of claims 4 and 6 over Ohms, Hazama, and Booth,
we do not find these arguments persuasive for the reasons previously
discussed.

The Rejection of Claims 4 and 6 - Shaughnessy/Hazama/Booth, Second
Subsidiary Issue

Appellant largely repeats the previously discussed arguments with
respect to Booth and the integer date format (Req. for Reh'g 23-25). We do
not find these arguments persuasive for the reasons previously discussed.

The Rejection of Claim 6 - Shaughnessy/Hazama/Booth

Appellant largely repeats the previously discussed arguments with
respect to Booth and the integer date format (Req. for Reh'g 25). We do not
find these arguments persuasive for the reasons previously discussed.
Appeal 2008-004652
Reexamination Control Nos. 90/005,727; 90/005,592; 90/005,628; and
90/006,541 (merged)
Reissue Application No. 09/512,592 (merged)
U.S. Patent No. 5,806,063

18
The Rejection of Claims 11-15

Appellant argues that "claims 11-15 are method claims containing
recitations essentially the same as a related claim in claims 1-10, and for the
reasons argued above are allowable over the references cited" (Req. for
Reh'g 25). We do not agree for the reasons discussed above with respect to
claims 1-10.

The Rejection of Claim 68 - Shaughnessy/Hazama or Ohms/Hazama.

Appellant argues that claim 68 recites features similar to those in
claims 1 and 4 (Req. for Reh'g 25-26). We do not agree that the Decision
erred in affirming the rejection of claim 68 for the reasons discussed above
with respect to claims 1 and 4.
In addition, Appellant argues that "[n]either Shaughnessy nor Hazama
reformat each of these symbolic representations as part of a process to
facilitate further processing of the reformatted dates, so, necessarily they do
not show such a reformatting step done without the addition of a new date
data field" (Req. for Reh'g 26) and do not teach or suggest facilitating
"further processing involving 'running a program on the reformatted
symbolic representations'" (Req. for Reh'g 26).
We do not agree. As previously discussed and as explained in the
Decision (Dec. 113-114), Shaughnessy and Hazama teach or suggest
reformatting each of the symbolic representations to facilitate further
processing of the reformatted dates.
Appeal 2008-004652
Reexamination Control Nos. 90/005,727; 90/005,592; 90/005,628; and
90/006,541 (merged)
Reissue Application No. 09/512,592 (merged)
U.S. Patent No. 5,806,063

19
Furthermore, with respect to the rejection over Ohms and Hazama,
Appellant argues that "since Ohms does not reformat any date stored in the
database in Y2K ambiguous format for purposes of further processing the
date data with the reformatted Y2K unambiguous format, and since Ozama
[sic] does not reformat each date in the database to facilitate further
processing of the date data, as noted above, necessarily neither performs the
additional process recitations just note [sic] with respect to claim 68." (Req.
for Reh'g 26.)
We do not agree. As previously discussed and as explained in the
Decision (Dec. 113-114), Ohms and Hazama teach or suggest reformatting
each date in the database to facilitate further processing.

The Rejection of Claim 69 - Shaughnessy/Hazama or Ohms/Hazama/Booth

Appellant argues that the Decision erred in affirming the rejection of
claim 69 for the same reasons given regarding claim 68. (Req. for
Reh'g 26-27.)
We do not agree for the reasons discussed above with respect to
claim 68.

The Rejection of Claim 73 - Shaughnessy/Hazama or Ohms/Hazama

Appellant states that "the same arguments made above as to the
rejections of claim 1 apply here." (Req. for Reh'g 27.)
Appeal 2008-004652
Reexamination Control Nos. 90/005,727; 90/005,592; 90/005,628; and
90/006,541 (merged)
Reissue Application No. 09/512,592 (merged)
U.S. Patent No. 5,806,063

20
We do not agree for the reasons discussed above with respect to
claim 1.

The Rejection of Claim 74 - Shaughnessy/Hazama/Booth or
Ohms/Hazama/Booth

Appellant states that "the same arguments made above as to the
rejections of claim 4 apply here." (Req. for Reh'g 27.)
We do not agree for the reasons discussed above with respect to
claim 4.

The Rejection of Claim 75 - Shaughnessy/Hazama/Booth or
Ohms/Hazama/Booth

Appellant argues that the Decision erred in affirming the rejection of
claim 75 for the same reasons given regarding claim 68 and because
Booth like Ohms, stores data in integer format and has no need
to and does not convert data in a database from a Y2K
ambiguous format to a Y2K non-ambiguous format to facilitate
further processing of the date data stored in the database, and,
therefore also does not run a program on such a converted date
data.

(Req. for Reh'g 27-28.)

We do not agree for the reasons discussed above with respect to
claim 68 and for the reasons discussed above with respect to Booth and
Ohms.

Appeal 2008-004652
Reexamination Control Nos. 90/005,727; 90/005,592; 90/005,628; and
90/006,541 (merged)
Reissue Application No. 09/512,592 (merged)
U.S. Patent No. 5,806,063

21
The Rejection of Claim 76 - Shaughnessy/Hazama/Booth or
Ohms/Hazama/Booth

Appellant argues that the Decision erred in affirming the rejection of
claim 76 for the same reasons given regarding claim 69 and because
Booth like Ohms, stores data in integer format and has no need
to and does not convert data in a database from a Y2K
ambiguous format to a Y2K non-ambiguous format to facilitate
further processing of the date data stored in the database, and,
therefore also does not sort such converted date data.

(Req. for Reh'g 28.)

We do not agree for the reasons discussed above with respect to
claim 69 and for the reasons discussed above with respect to Booth and
Ohms.

CONCLUSION
The Request for Rehearing of our Decision of March 16, 2009, has
been considered. We modify the findings of fact (FF) in the original
Decision to make the following four additions:
A. At page 14 of the Decision, FF 1 is modified to add the following
after the last sentence:
The Specification states that "[t]he present invention thus
provides an efficient approach to converting and utilizing
symbolic date representations in databases, which allows
automatic processing of dates ranging from before to after the
year 2000." ('063 patent, col. 2, ll. 21-24.) "The large number
of dates represented in some databases may thereby be readily
processed and utilized." ('063 patent, col. 2, ll. 24-26 (emphasis
Appeal 2008-004652
Reexamination Control Nos. 90/005,727; 90/005,592; 90/005,628; and
90/006,541 (merged)
Reissue Application No. 09/512,592 (merged)
U.S. Patent No. 5,806,063

22
added).) "Other features and advantages of the present
invention will be apparent from the following more detailed
description of the preferred embodiment, . . . . The scope of the
invention is not, however, limited to this preferred
embodiment." ('063 patent, col. 2, ll. 26-32.)

B. At page 18 of the Decision, FF 8 is modified to add the following
as the last full sentence on page 18:
"For example, the date 12/15/93 (Dec. 15, 1993) is represented
as 19931215 and the date 12/15/00 (Dec. 15, 2000) as
20001215. A straightforward numerical sort of date data fields
expressed in this form produces an accurate chronological
ordering." ('063 patent, col. 3, ll. 44-48.)

C. At page 32 of the Decision, FF 25 is modified to add the following
after the last sentence:
In one example, Shaughnessy describes an application program
for a bank that performs a date comparison to determine if loan
payments are overdue. (Col. 4, l. 37 to col. 5, l. 3.)
Shaughnessy describes modifying the program to call a
subroutine that performs the date comparison and passing the
following to the subroutine: "today's date, the date next
payment is due, and a three byte parameter, the first byte of
which identifies the format of today's date, the second byte of
which identifies the format of the date next payment is due, and
the third byte of which is left available for a return code
indicative of a result of the comparison." (Col. 4, ll. 51-58.)
The account is indicated to be OK if the result from the
subroutine indicates that the next payment due date is greater
than today's date. (Col. 4, ll. 59-61.) "The subroutines which
perform the date operations can do so regardless of the format
of the dates to be operated on." (Col. 4, ll. 62-63.) Figure 8
shows an example of the steps that a modified computer system
Appeal 2008-004652
Reexamination Control Nos. 90/005,727; 90/005,592; 90/005,628; and
90/006,541 (merged)
Reissue Application No. 09/512,592 (merged)
U.S. Patent No. 5,806,063

23
performs in order to complete a date comparison operation.
(Col. 3, ll. 28-29; col. 8, l. 33 to col. 12, l. 19.) The call to the
subroutine 100 includes date parameters P1 and P2 (e.g., next
payment due date and today's date), and three byte parameter
P3. (Col. 9, ll. 44-53.) To facilitate performing the date
comparison operation 118, date parameters P1 and P2 are
converted depending upon their date format. For example,
prior to comparison step 118, P2 and P1 may be converted to a
four digit year format YYYYMMDD at steps 122 and 130
respectively. (Col. 11, l. 57 to col. 12, l. 12.) Upon completion
of the comparison 118, the subroutine returns the results of the
comparison to the program 132. (Col. 12, ll. 14-19.)

D. At page 36 of the Decision, FF 36 is modified to add the following
after the second sentence:
"The return format of the DTOS() function is not affected by
the SET DATE setting. It is this string representation of the
date that should be used for sorting and indexing dates, since
the dates will appear in chronological order." (Page 945.)

The Request for Rehearing is otherwise denied.

Requests for extensions of time are governed by 37 C.F.R. § 1.550(c).
See 37 C.F.R. § 41.52(b).

REHEARING DENIED

Appeal 2008-004652
Reexamination Control Nos. 90/005,727; 90/005,592; 90/005,628; and
90/006,541 (merged)
Reissue Application No. 09/512,592 (merged)
U.S. Patent No. 5,806,063

24

bim

cc:

Patent Owner:

BRUCE DICKENS
DICKENS-SOEDER 2000, LLC
3892 CEDRON STREET
IRVINE, CA 92606

Counsel for Third Party Requesters:

ROSS F. HUNT, JR.
C/O LARSON AND TAYLOR
1199 NORTH FAIRFAX STREET, SUITE 900
ALEXANDRIA, VA 22314

PAUL E. CRAWFORD
CONNOLLY BOVE LODGE & HUTZ, LLP
1200 MARKET STREET
WILMINGTON, DE 19801

STANLEY B. GREEN
CONNOLLY BOVE LODGE & HUTZ, LLP
1990 M STREET NW, SUITE 800
WASHINGTON, DC 20036