Ex Parte Bhatti et al

Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences

Mar 28, 2012

11017772 (B.P.A.I. Mar. 28, 2012)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
____________

BEFORE THE BOARD OF PATENT APPEALS
AND INTERFERENCES
____________

Ex parte NINA BHATTI, NICHOLAS LYONS, and
JOHN C. SCHETTINO, JR.
____________

Appeal 2010-006481
Application 11/017,772
Technology Center 3600
____________

Before MURRIEL E. CRAWFORD, ANTON W. FETTING, and BIBHU R.
MOHANTY, Administrative Patent Judges.

CRAWFORD, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL

Appeal 2010-006481
Application 11/017,772

2
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Appellants seek our review under 35 U.S.C. § 134 of the Examiner’s
final decision rejecting claims 1 to 12 and 43 to 47. We have jurisdiction
over the appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We REVERSE.
Claim 1 is illustrative:
1. A computer readable medium on which is embedded
one or more computer programs, said one or more computer
programs implementing a method of optimizing retrieval of
object-associated information from a server to a device, said
one or more computer programs comprising a set of instructions
for:
identifying data associated with an object identification
received from the device;
identifying at least one optimization parameter associated
with transmission of the data associated with the object
identification to the device; and
determining an amount of the data associated with the
object identification to transmit to the device using the at least
one optimization parameter.
Appellants appeal the following rejection:
1. Claims 1 to 12 and 43 to 47 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable
over Ebert (US 2003/0227392 A1, pub. Dec. 11, 2003) in view of Waller
(US 2001/0047293 A1, pub. Nov. 29, 2001).

Appeal 2010-006481
Application 11/017,772

3
ANALYSIS
We will not sustain the Examiner’s rejection because we agree with
the Appellants that the Examiner erred in finding that Waller discloses one
optimization parameter associated with transmission of the data associated
with the object identification to the device. The Examiner relies on the
Abstract and paragraph [0075] of Waller.
We find that the Abstract of Waller states that the Waller invention
optimizes inventory and inventory investment utilization based upon
inventory holding cost and lost sales, economic profit, unit sales, sales
revenue or gross margin. Paragraph [0075] discloses an optimization
process that enables collaboration between retailers and suppliers in making
shelf layout and product assortment decisions. We agree with the
Appellants that Waller is directed to an inventory management system and
processes at the retail, wholesale, and distributor level that seek to optimize
inventory and inventory investment and discloses nothing about identifying
an optimization parameter associated with object transmission of data
associated with object identification to a device.
In view of the foregoing, we will not sustain the Examiner’s rejection
of claim 1 or of the remaining claims dependent thereon.

DECISION
The decision of the Examiner is REVERSED.

REVERSED

Appeal 2010-006481
Application 11/017,772

4
hh