Ex Parte Bateni et alDownload PDFPatent Trial and Appeal BoardMay 19, 201612545263 (P.T.A.B. May. 19, 2016) Copy Citation UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE 12/545,263 08/21/2009 26890 7590 05/23/2016 JAMES M, STOVER TERADATA US, INC. 10000 INNOVATION DRIVE DAYTON, OH 45342 FIRST NAMED INVENTOR Arash Bateni 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. 20438 1983 EXAMINER WALKER III, GEORGE H ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 3683 NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE 05/23/2016 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): michelle. boldman @teradata.com jam es.stover@teradata.com td.uspto@outlook.com PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07) UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD Ex parte ARASH BATENI and EDWARD KIM Appeal2014-004647 Application 12/545,263 1 Technology Center 3600 Before JENNIFER D. BAHR, STEFAN STAICOVICI, and SEAN P. O'HANLON, Administrative Patent Judges. O'HANLON, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL STATEMENT OF THE CASE Arash Bateni and Edward Kim (Appellants) appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134 from the Examiner's Final decision rejecting claims 1-18. We have jurisdiction over this appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b ). SUMMARY OF DECISION We AFFIRM. 1 According to the Appellants, the real party in interest is Teradata US, Incorporated. Appeal Br. 2. Appeal2014-004647 Application 12/545,263 SUMMARY OF INVENTION The Appellants' "invention relates to a [sic] methods and systems for forecasting product demand using a causal methodology, based on multiple regression techniques, , [sic] and in particular to a method for de- seasonalizing causal factors having strong seasonal patterns and using the deseasonalized variables within the causal demand forecasting methodology." Spec. i-f 7. Claim 1, reproduced below from page 12 (Claims Appendix) of the Appeal Brief, is illustrative of the claimed subject matter: 1. A computer-implemented method for forecasting product demand for a product during a future sales period, the method comprising the steps of: maintaining, on a computer, an electronic database of historical product demand information and historical causal variable data; identifying a causal variable having a seasonal pattern influencing demand for said product; removing, by said computer, the seasonal pattern from said historical causal variable data associated with said causal variable to generate de-seasonalized causal variable data for said causal variable; analyzing, by said computer, said historical product demand information and said de-seasonalized causal variable data for said product to determine a regression coefficient corresponding to said causal variable; calculating, by said computer, an initial demand forecast for said product during said future sales period from said historical demand information; receiving, at said computer, a forecast value for said causal variable during said future sales period; removing, by said computer, the seasonal pattern from said forecast value for said causal variable to generate a de- seasonalized forecast value for said causal variable; and blending, by said computer, said initial demand forecast, said regression coefficient corresponding to said causal variable 2 Appeal2014-004647 Application 12/545,263 and said de-seasonalized forecast value for said causal variable to determine a product demand forecast for said product. REFERENCES The Examiner relies on the following prior art references in rejecting the claims on appeal: Crosswhite Niiyama US 6,611,726 Bl JP 2000293203 A Aug. 26, 2003 Oct. 20, 2000 Aaron Hirst, Brigham Young Univ., Deseasonalizing Forecasts (Fall 2005) (hereinafter "Hirst") REJECTIONS Claims 1--4, 6-10, 12-16, and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Crosswhite in view of Hirst. Claims 5, 11, and 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Crosswhite in view of Hirst and Niiyama. ANALYSIS Claims 1--4, 6-10, 12-16, and 18-Crosswhite in view of Hirst Claims 1--4 and 6 Regarding independent claim 1, the Examiner finds that Crosswhite discloses the invention substantially as claimed (including the step of "removing, by said computer, the seasonal pattern from said forecast value for said causal variable to generate a de-seasonalized forecast value for said causal variable"), but does not disclose, inter alia, the step of: 3 Appeal2014-004647 Application 12/545,263 blending, by said computer, said initial demand forecast, said regression coefficient corresponding to said causal variable and said de-seasonalized forecast value for said causal variable to determine a product demand forecast for said product. Final Act. 6-7. The Examiner further finds that Crosswhite discloses applying a number of forecasting methods to historical causal variable data to generate forecast causal variable values, Crosswhite discloses using the Holt-Winters seasonal forecasting method, and the Holt-Winters seasonal forecasting method includes removing the seasonal pattern of the subject variable (citing works by Goodwin and Kalekar), and concludes that Crosswhite, therefore, discloses generating de-seasonalized forecast values for the causal variable. Ans. 2--4; see also Final Act. 2-3. To cure the deficiencies of Crosswhite, the Examiner turns to the teachings in Hirst regarding de-seasonalizing forecast data. Final Act. 7-8. Based on these teachings, the Examiner concludes that it would have been obvious for a skilled artisan to add the steps of 1) "analyzing the historical product demand information and the causal variable data for said product to determine a regression coefficient corresponding to said causal variable," 2) "calculating an initial demand forecast for the product during the future sales period from that historical demand information," and 3) "blending the initial demand forecast, and the regression coefficient as taught by Hirst, with the de-seasonalized forecast value for the causal variable taught by Crosswhite" to the method of Crosswhite, the rationale being that "the claimed invention is merely a combination of old elements, and in the combination each element merely would have performed the same function as it did separately, and one of ordinary skill in the art would have 4 Appeal2014-004647 Application 12/545,263 recognized that the results of the combination were predictable." Id. at 8. The Examiner further finds that Hirst discloses using linear regression to determine a regression coefficient identified as variable "b" in the forecast formula Y = a + bx. Ans. 4; see also Final Act. 3--4. The Examiner further determines that it would have been obvious to the skilled artisan "to expand Hirst' s example to use linear regression to determine the value of coefficients for other causal variables" in addition to demand because "Hirst also teaches multiple causal variables." Final Act. 3--4, citing Hirst pp. 4 and 10. We find that the Examiner has satisfied the burden of showing "some articulated reasoning with some rational underpinning to support the legal conclusion of obviousness." KSR Int'! Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 418 (2007) (quoting In re Kahn, 441F.3d977, 988 (Fed. Cir. 2006)). Having set forth a case of prima facie obviousness, the burden shifts to the Appellants to refute the Examiner's rejections. See In re Oetiker, 977 F.2d 1443, 1445 (Fed. Cir. 1992) (discussing how, ifan examiner presents a prima facie case, "the burden of coming forward with evidence or argument shifts to the applicant"). We find that the Appellants have not satisfied this burden. The Appellants argue that while the section of Crosswhite cited by the Examiner in the Final Action does discuss time series forecasting, Crosswhite contains "no discussion or language in this cited paragraph concerning removing seasonal patterns from a forecast value of a causal variable to determine a de-serialized forecast value for the causal variable." Appeal Br. 8-9 (discussing the paragraph beginning at Crosswhite col. 3, 1. 5 Appeal2014-004647 Application 12/545,263 39). Furthermore, the Appellants argue, the Goodwin and Kalekar references (cited by the Examiner to provide details about the Holt-Winters seasonal forecasting method) "describe exponential smoothing techniques, seasonal models and indexes, and the removal of seasonality from historical data," but, the Appellants argue, "it is not seen that either Croswhite [sic] ... or the Holt-Winters references, Goodwin and Kalkar [sic], teach or suggest removing a seasonal pattern from a [sic] forecast values." Reply Br. 2-3. We find these arguments to be unpersuasive because the Examiner did not rely solely on that single paragraph of Crosswhite in setting forth the rejection. Rather, as explained by the Examiner: Crosswhite teaches a method of forecasting comprising "selecting a dependent variable for which a value is to be forecast, gathering historical data on values of the dependent variable and explanatory variables (i.e. causal variables) in prior time periods" (col. 6, lines 4--8); "this historical data is used with a variety of forecasting methods to estimate future product demand" (col. 3, lines 3 6-3 8), the variety of methods including Holt-Winter's seasonal forecasting methods as noted in the passage cited by the applicant; where "Organizations typically apply some, or all, of these forecasting methods to individual historical data" (col 4, lines 1-2), which historical data includes causal variables as noted above and time series forecasting methods applied to causal variables will yield forecasts for those variables. Thus, Crosswhite explicitly teaches applying at least the named time series forecasting methods to the historical causal variable data associated with the causal variable to forecast values for those causal variables. Final Act. 2-3. The Appellants have not addressed the rejection actually set forth by the Examiner, and the rejection, therefore, remains unrefuted. The Appellants further argue that Hirst does not teach the recited blending step because "[ t ]he quarterly seasonal index ... of Hirst is not a 6 Appeal2014-004647 Application 12/545,263 regression coefficient" and Hirst does not teach including a de-seasonalized forecast value in its unadjusted regression forecast model. Appeal Br. 10- 11. We find these arguments to be unpersuasive because while the Examiner's rejections were based on a combination of the teachings of Hirst and Crosswhite (see Final Act. 3--4, 7-8; see also Ans. 4--5), the Appellants' arguments only address the Hirst reference and do not address what the combination of references teaches, as explained by the Examiner. "Nonobviousness cannot be established by attacking references individually where the rejection is based upon the teachings of a combination of references." In re Merck & Co., 800 F.2d 1091, 1097 (Fed. Cir. 1986). Accordingly, for the foregoing reasons, we sustain the Examiner's rejection of independent claim 1 as being unpatentable over Crosswhite in view of Hirst. The Appellants do not make any other substantive argument regarding the rejection of dependent claims 2--4 and 6. See Appeal Br. 7-11. Therefore, we likewise sustain the rejection of dependent claims 2--4 and 6 as being unpatentable over Crosswhite in view of Hirst. Claims 7-10 and 12 With respect to the rejection of independent claim 7, the Appellants rely on similar arguments as presented supra in regards to the rejection of claim 1. See Appeal Br. 7-11. Accordingly, for the same reasons as discussed supra with respect to claim 1, we also sustain the rejection of independent claim 7 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Crosswhite in view of Hirst. The Appellants do not make any other substantive argument regarding the rejection of dependent claims 8-10 and 12. See id. Therefore, we 7 Appeal2014-004647 Application 12/545,263 likewise sustain the rejection of dependent claims 8-10 and 12 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Crosswhite in view of Hirst. Claims 13-16 and 18 With respect to the rejection of independent claim 13, the Appellants rely on similar arguments as presented supra in regards to the rejection of claim 1. See Appeal Br. 7-11. Accordingly, for the same reasons as discussed supra with respect to claim 1, we also sustain the rejection of independent claim 13 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Crosswhite in view of Hirst. The Appellants do not make any other substantive argument regarding the rejection of dependent claims 14--16 and 18. See id. Therefore, we likewise sustain the rejection of dependent claims 14--16 and 18 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Crosswhite in view of Hirst. Claims 5, 11, and 17-Crosswhite in View of Hirst and Niiyama Claim 5 With respect to the rejection of dependent claim 5, the Appellants rely on the arguments presented supra in regards to the rejection of claim 1. Appeal Br. 7-11. Accordingly, for the same reasons as discussed supra, we also sustain the rejection of claim 5 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Crosswhite in View of Hirst and Niiyama. Claim 11 With respect to the rejection of dependent claim 11, the Appellants rely on the arguments presented supra in regards to the rejection of claim 1. 8 Appeal2014-004647 Application 12/545,263 Appeal Br. 7-11. Accordingly, for the same reasons as discussed supra, we also sustain the rejection of claim 11 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Crosswhite in view of Hirst and Niiyama. Claim 17 With respect to the rejection of dependent claim 17, the Appellants rely on the arguments presented supra in regards to the rejection of claim 1. Appeal Br. 7-11. Accordingly, for the same reasons as discussed supra, we also sustain the rejection of claim 17 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Crosswhite in View of Hirst and Niiyama. DECISION The Examiner's decision to reject claims 1--4, 6-10, 12-16, and 18 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Crosswhite in view of Hirst is affirmed. The Examiner's decision to reject claims 5, 11, and 17 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Crosswhite in view of Hirst and Niiyama 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 )(iv). AFFIRMED 9 Copy with citationCopy as parenthetical citation