Ex Parte Clendinning et al

Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences

Jul 18, 2012

09730538 (B.P.A.I. Jul. 18, 2012)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
____________

BEFORE THE BOARD OF PATENT APPEALS
AND INTERFERENCES
____________

Ex parte KERRY CLENDINNING, MICHAEL D. MCCARTNEY,
MATTHEW W. MENGERIN, FRED G. ROBINETTE, and
DAVID J. WILSON

____________

Appeal 2010-007343
Application 09/730,538
Technology Center 2100
____________

Before LANCE LEONARD BARRY, JEAN R. HOMERE, and ST. JOHN
COURTENAY III, Administrative Patent Judges.

BARRY, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL

STATEMENT OF THE CASE
The Patent Examiner rejected claims 1-19, 21, and 26. The
Appellants appeal therefrom under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a). We have jurisdiction
under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).

Appeal 2010-007343
Application 09/730,538

2
INVENTION
The following claim illustrates the invention on appeal:
10. A method of storing product information in a database, the
method comprising:
gathering product information from diverse external
sources;
loading the gathered product information into the
database, the gathered product information including a first
attribute-value pair that includes a first attribute and a first
value;
for each product in the gathered product information,
determining whether the
product is already present in said database, and if so,
translating the first attribute to a second attribute
responsive to identifying the first attribute in a list that includes
a plurality of attributes that are associated with the second
attribute, the second attribute being a canonical representation
of the plurality of attributes respectively; and
for each product determined as not being already present
in said database, adding a product identifier and related product
information to said database, the database to determine and to
store relationships between the various product identifiers for
each new product represented in newly gathered information
and stores information regarding the related product
information for that product according to alias lists for product
information terminology stored in said database.

REJECTION
Claims 1-19, 21, and 26 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) as
being anticipated by U.S. Patent No. 5,950,173 ("Perkowski").

DISCUSSION
Based on the Appellants' arguments, we will decide the appeal of
claims 1-19, 21, and 26 on the basis of claim 10. See 37 C.F.R.
Appeal 2010-007343
Application 09/730,538

3
§ 41.37(c)(1)(vii). The issue before us follows: Did the Examiner err in
finding that Perkowski teaches "translating the first attribute to a second
attribute responsive to identifying the first attribute in a list that includes a
plurality of attributes that are associated with the second attribute, the
second attribute being a canonical representation of the plurality of attributes
respectively[,]" as required by representative claim 10?
The Examiner finds that "in Col. 9, lines 39-48, . . . the Information
Field of the IPI [i.e., Internet Product Information] which corresponds to the
first attribute is in fact translated into a Product Advertisement Information
Field, the Product Specification Information Field which corresponds to the
second attribute." (Ans. 6.) The Appellants argue that "[a]s defined in the
application 'each column corresponds to an attribute' such that "each row . . .
holds data for a single product and each column holds a single attribute, such
as a product name.' Indeed, as confirmed by the quotes from Appellants'
patent specification, neither the 'updated URL' nor the 'original URL' may be
said to be attributes within the meaning of Appellant's claims." (Appeal Br.
17-18.)
"During prosecution . . . the PTO gives claims their 'broadest
reasonable interpretation.'" In re Bigio, 381 F.3d 1320, 1324 (Fed. Cir.
2004) (quoting In re Hyatt, 211 F.3d 1367, 1372 (Fed. Cir. 2000)).
"Moreover, limitations are not to be read into the claims from the
specification." In re Van Geuns, 988 F.2d 1181, 1184 (Fed. Cir. 1993)
(citing In re Zletz, 893 F.2d 319, 321 (Fed. Cir. 1989)).
Here, we agree with the Examiner's finding that the aforementioned
Fields of Perkowski constitute attributes because these Fields are columns
storing data. We will not read into the claim from the Specification what the
Appeal 2010-007343
Application 09/730,538

4
data represent, which amounts to non-functional descriptive material.
"[O]ur reviewing court has held that nonfunctional descriptive material
cannot lend patentability to an invention that would have otherwise been
anticipated by the prior art." Ex parte Mathias, 84 USPQ2d 1276, 1279
(BPAI 2005) (informative), aff'd, 191 Fed.Appx. 959 (Fed. Cir. 2006) (citing
In re Ngai, 367 F.3d 1336, 1339 (Fed. Cir. 2004)), aff’d, 191 Fed. Appx. 959
(Fed. Cir. 2006)).
Besides the aforementioned finding of fact about the claimed
translating, the Examiner makes the following additional "specific fact
finding," Ex parte Belinne, No. 2009-004693, 2009 WL 2477843, at *4
(BPAI Aug. 10, 2009) (informative). "The identification of an attribute is
the action of the data collector is identifying data used to populate the data
tables of FIGS. 4A1, 4A2 and 4B." (Ans. 7.) "The second attribute is a
canonical representation of the other attributes in the sense that it is an
alternative representation associated with the other attributes and is made in
accordance with a canon (a relation, such as a relational table)." (Id. at 5.)
For their part, the Appellants do not address these findings. Instead,
they make the following allegations.
[T]he portion of Perkowski relied upon in the Final Office
Action still fails to describe: 1) the construed attribute-value
pair as being translated to a second attribute, or 2) a translating
that is responsive to an identifying the first attribute in a list, or
3) a list that includes a plurality of attributes that are associated
with the second attribute, or 4) the second attribute being a
canonical representation of the plurality of attributes
respectively.
(App. Br. 18.) These allegations "do not . . . explain why the Examiner's
explicit fact finding is in error." Belinne, at *4.
Appeal 2010-007343
Application 09/730,538

5
Therefore, we conclude that the Examiner did not err in finding that
Perkowski teaches "translating the first attribute to a second attribute
responsive to identifying the first attribute in a list that includes a plurality of
attributes that are associated with the second attribute, the second attribute
being a canonical representation of the plurality of attributes respectively[,]"
as required by representative claim 10.

DECISION
We affirm the rejection of claim 10 and of claims 1-9, 11-19, 21, and
26, which fall therewith.
No time for taking any action connected with this appeal may be
extended under 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a)(1). See 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a)(1)(iv).

AFFIRMED

tkl