Ex Parte Benson et alDownload PDFPatent Trial and Appeal BoardMay 4, 201812685614 (P.T.A.B. May. 4, 2018) Copy Citation UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE 12/685,614 0111112010 20995 7590 05/08/2018 KNOBBE MARTENS OLSON & BEAR LLP 2040 MAIN STREET FOURTEENTH FLOOR IRVINE, CA 92614 FIRST NAMED INVENTOR Amanda Benson 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. GLNBK.009Cl 7802 EXAMINER CHBOUKI, TAREK ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 2165 NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE 05/08/2018 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): j ayna.cartee@knobbe.com efiling@knobbe.com PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07) UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD Ex parte AMANDA BENSON, GREGORY P. BENSON, and MELISSA HELLER Appeal2018-000343 Application 12/685,614 Technology Center 2100 Before LARRY J. HUME, LINZY T. McCARTNEY, and JOHN D. HAMANN, Administrative Patent Judges. McCARTNEY, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL Appellants appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134 from a rejection of claims 1- 3, 5-20, 34, 35, 37--42, and 44--50. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b ). We affirm-in-part. Appeal2018-000343 Application 12/685,614 BACKGROUND The present patent application "relates to databases, and in particular using the database to manage communications between consumers and suppliers of products." Spec. 1. Claims 1, 34, 41, and 48 are independent. Claim 1 illustrates the claimed subject matter: 1. A networked database management system (DBMS), compnsmg: a computer accessible data storage, comprising a database remotely located from a plurality of consumers and a plurality of merchants, wherein the remote database comprises: a plurality of records including user data for the plurality of consumers, each record comprising a plurality of logically separable fields for data related to one of the consumers, the plurality of fields comprising: user profile information of the one consumer, a user defined interest of the one consumer, and access control list data, wherein the access control list is specified by the one consumer and comprises identification information for the plurality of merchants comprising at least one of a manufacturer, a vendor, and a provider which market or sell types of products or services that are relevant to one or more user defined interests, and a plurality of additional records, each additional record including inventory data of one of the plurality of merchants; a communication module in data communication with the data storage and configured to receive user profile information and user defined interest from the one consumer for storage in the remote database; and a matching module in data communication with the data storage and configured to perform a search on the remote 2 Appeal2018-000343 Application 12/685,614 database for merchants which have inventory data matching the user defined interest of the one consumer and to selectively grant to one or more of the merchants access to the user profile information and the user defined interest of the one consumer stored in the remote database, based at least in part on the search on the remote database for the merchants which have inventory data matching the user defined interest and; for only those merchants having been found by the search, a comparison of the found merchants with the identification information of merchants in the access control list specified by the one consumer, wherein the communication and matching modules are executable by a processor. 1,34,48 REJECTIONS Nonstatutory Double Paten tin Benson1 1-3,5-9, 13-20,34, 35,37-39,41,42,44-- 50 § 103(a) Van Der Riet, 2 Siegel 3 10-12 40 § 103(a) § 103(a) ANALYSIS Van Der Riet, Siegel, Bowser4 Van Der Riet, Siegel, Barkan5 Nonstatutory Double Patenting Rejection The Examiner rejected independent claims 1, 34, and 48 on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as unpatentable over claims 1, 12, 1 Benson et al. (US 9105060 B2; Aug. 11, 2015). 2 Van Der Riet (US 2003/0126146 Al; July 3, 2003). 3 Siegel et al. (US 2002/0143961 Al; Oct. 3, 2002). 4 Bowser (US 2004/0098323 Al; May 20, 2004). 5 Barkan et al. (US 2004/0056101 Al; Mar. 25, 2004). 3 Appeal2018-000343 Application 12/685,614 and 18 of Benson. See Final Act. 2-3. Appellants have not specifically challenged this rejection. App. Br. 9-15; Reply Br. 2-11. We therefore summarily sustain this rejection. Rejections under 35 USC§ 103 Appellants argue the Examiner has not established the combination of Van Der Riet and Siegel teaches or suggests the "matching module" recited in claim 1 and similar limitations recited in independent claims 34, 41, and 48. App. Br. 10-14; Reply Br. 5-9. In particular, Appellants argue the Examiner failed to address certain aspects of the "matching module" limitation, including performing the recited comparison "for only those merchants having been found by the search." App. Br. 10-14; Reply Br. 8- 9. We find Appellants' argument persuasive. Claim 1 recites a matching module configured to perform certain actions, including selectively grant to one or more of the merchants access to the user profile information and the user defined interest ... based at least in part on the search on the remote database for the merchants which have inventory data matching the user defined interest and; for only those merchants having been found by the search, a comparison of the found merchants with the identification information of merchants in the access control list specified by the one consumer. App. Br. 17 (emphasis added). Independent claims 34, 41, and 48 also recite performing similar comparisons "for only those merchants having been found by the search." App. Br. 20-21, 22-23, 24--25. The Examiner found the cited art teaches the recited comparisons, but the Examiner never explicitly addressed whether the art teaches or suggests performing the comparison "for only those merchants having been found by the search" as required by the independent claims. App. Br. 4--6, 10-12, 13-15, 17-19; 4 Appeal2018-000343 Application 12/685,614 Ans. 2--4. The Examiner therefore failed to establish independent claims 1, 34, 41, and 48 would have been obvious over the combination of Van Der Riet and Siegel. Accordingly, we do not sustain the Examiner's rejections of independent claims 1, 34, 41, and 48 and their respective dependent claims. CONCLUSION N onstatutory 1,34,38 Double Benson 1,34,48 Paten tin 1-3 5-9 ' ' 1-3 5-9 ' ' 13-20, 34, Van Der 13-20, 34, 35, 37-39, § 103(a) Riet, Siegel 35, 37-39, 41, 42, 44-- 41,42,44-- 50 50 Van Der 10-12 § 103(a) Riet, Siegel, 10-12 Bowser Van Der 40 § 103(a) Riet, Siegel, 40 Barkan 2, 3, 5-20, Summary 1,34,48 35, 37--42, 44--47, 49, 50 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-IN-PART 5 Copy with citationCopy as parenthetical citation