11122390 (P.T.A.B. Jun. 25, 2013)

Ex Parte Bilotti

Patent Trial and Appeal BoardJun 25, 2013

11122390 (P.T.A.B. Jun. 25, 2013)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE 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 APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE FIRST NAMED INVENTOR ATTORNEY DOCKET NO. CONFIRMATION NO. 11/122,390 05/05/2005 David Bilotti 7785-20 (IT1051) 6805 92384 7590 06/26/2013 AT&T Legal Department - G&G Attention: Patent Docketing Room 2A-207 One AT&T Way Bedminster, NJ 07921 EXAMINER OBISESAN, AUGUSTINE KUNLE ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 2156 MAIL DATE DELIVERY MODE 06/26/2013 PAPER 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. PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07) UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE ____________ BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD ____________ Ex parte DAVID BILOTTI ____________ Appeal 2011-002325 Application 11/122,390 Technology Center 2100 ____________ Before ALLEN R. MacDONALD, MICHAEL W. KIM, and BARBARA A. BENOIT, Administrative Patent Judges. BENOIT, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL This is an appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the rejection of claims 1-5, 7-12, 14-19, and 21-23, which constitute all the claims pending in the application. Claims 6, 13, and 20 have been canceled. App. Br. 17- 20. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). We reverse. Appeal 2011-002325 Application 11/122,390 2 STATEMENT OF THE CASE Appellant’s invention relates to identifying duplicate entries in a historical database. See generally Abstract. Claims 1 and 8 are illustrative and read as follows, with key limitations emphasized: 1. A computer-readable storage medium, the storage medium comprising computer instructions for: [(a)] generating a historical database by extracting information from an on-line database according to selection criteria; [(b)] extracting historical data from the historical database according to predetermined extraction criteria; [(c)] searching for one or more potential duplicate entries in the historical data according to a portion of the selection criteria used for generating the historical database, [(d)] wherein the potential duplicate entries arise from anomalies in the generation of the historical database; [(e)] submitting a notification when one or more potential duplicate entries have been identified; [(f)] accessing an exclusion list; and [(g)] excluding from the searching one or more acceptable duplicate entries as identified by the exclusion list. 8. A data management system, comprising: [(a)] a memory; and [(b)] a processor coupled to the memory, wherein the processor is programmed to: [(i)] extract historical data from a historical database according to predetermined extraction criteria; [(ii)] search for one or more potential duplicate entries in the historical data according to a portion of selection criteria used for generating the historical database; [(iii)] store an exclusion list; and [(iv)] submit a notification when one or more potential duplicate entries have been identified, [(v)] wherein the processor is further programmed to exclude from the search one or more acceptable duplicate entries as identified by the exclusion list. Appeal 2011-002325 Application 11/122,390 3 The Rejection The Examiner rejected claims 1-5, 7-12, 14-19, and 21-23 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Gunther (US 2005/0065944 Al; issued Mar. 25, 2005), Stoltenberg (US 2003/0126156 Al; issued July 3, 2003); and Boothby (US 6,532,480 B1; issued Mar. 11, 2003). Ans. 3-8. ANALYSIS Claims 1-5, 7, 15-19, 21, and 23 Regarding illustrative claim 1, the Examiner finds that Gunther teaches limitations (a), (b), (c); Stoltenberg teaches limitations (d) and (e); and Boothby teaches limitations (f) and (g). Among other things, Appellant challenges the Examiner’s findings that Gunther teaches limitation (c). App. Br. 5-6, 8-11. Gunther describes extracting data from an operational database and saving the extracted data in data warehouses where data sets that have been transferred twice can be filtered out. Gunther, ¶¶ 4, 23. Gunther also describes an exemplary method of providing data subsets to a data warehouse in which timestamps identify data to be extracted and various embodiments of specific queries to do so. Gunther, ¶¶ 24-33; Figs. 2-4. The extracted data sets are imported to the data warehouse where a filtering module eliminates duplicates identified based on identical primary keys. Gunther, ¶¶ 39-40. Appellant argues that Gunther fails to teach “searching for one or more potential duplicate entries in the historical data according to a portion of the selection criteria used for generating the historical database,” recited in claim 1, because Gunther’s data extraction from the operational database Appeal 2011-002325 Application 11/122,390 4 uses a selection criteria based on timestamps and Gunther’s search for duplicate entries is based on primary keys. App. Br. 5-6. The Examiner equates Gunther’s timestamps with “selection criteria” recited in limitation (a). Ans. 4. Gunther provides examples of a timestamp as “a seven-part value that includes a CPU-date and a CPU-time expressed in years, months, days, hours, minutes, seconds, and microseconds” or as “a CPU-date stamp.” Gunther, ¶ 19; see also Gunther, ¶ 36. Gunther’s timestamp does not teach or suggest using a primary key as selection criteria for generating a historical database. Thus, although Gunther describes searching for potential duplicate entries in the historical data, Gunther does not teach or suggest doing so “according to a portion of the selection criteria used for generating the historical database,” as recited in limitation (c) of claim 1. Accordingly, we agree with Appellant that the Examiner has not pointed to any evidence that is sufficient to show limitation (c) in claim 1. Nor has the Examiner explained how the combination of Gunther, Stoltenberg, and Boothby teach or suggest limitation (c) in claim 1. We, therefore, do not sustain the rejection of (1) independent claim 1, (2) independent claim 15, which recites commensurate limitations, and (3) dependent claims 2-5, 7, 16-19, 21, and 23. Claims 8-12, 14, and 22 Independent claim 8 recites “search for one or more potential duplicate entries in the historical data according to a portion of selection criteria used for generating the historical database” but, unlike claim 1, does not require generating the historical database “by extracting information Appeal 2011-002325 Application 11/122,390 5 from an on-line database according to a selection criteria.” Despite these differences, the Examiner indicates that independent claim 8 is rejected under the same reason set forth in connection with independent claim 1. See Ans. 7. Thus, the Examiner, equates “selection criteria used for generating the historical database” with Gunther’s timestamps (see Ans. 4), which are not used for searching for potential duplicate entries in the historical data. As discussed in the previous explanation, Gunther’s primary key is used to search for potential duplicate entries in the historical data, whereas Gunther’s timestamps are used as selection criteria for generating the historical database, according to the Examiner’s mapping. Under this mapping, Gunther does not teach or suggest a primary key is used in the selection criteria for generating the historical database. Accordingly, Gunther does not teach or suggest limitation (ii) in claim 8 – that is, “search for one or more potential duplicate entries in the historical data according to a portion of selection criteria used for generating the historical database.” We, therefore, do not sustain the Examiner’s rejection of claims independent claim 8 and its dependent claims 9-12, 14, and 22. CONCLUSION The Examiner erred in rejecting claims 1-5, 7-12, 14-19, and 21-23 under § 103. Appeal 2011-002325 Application 11/122,390 6 ORDER The Examiner’s decision rejecting claims 1-5, 7-12, 14-19, and 21-23 is reversed. REVERSED kis