Ex Parte Godwin et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Oct 12, 2012

11302759 (P.T.A.B. Oct. 12, 2012)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
____________________

BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
____________________

Ex parte BRYAN W. GODWIN and WILLIAM J. KALTER
____________________

Appeal 2011-005065
Application 11/302,759
Technology Center 3600
____________________

Before ANTON W. FETTING, MICHAEL W. KIM, and
NINA L. MEDLOCK, Administrative Patent Judges.

MEDLOCK, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL
Appeal 2011-005065
Application 11/302,759

2
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Appellants appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Examiner’s final
rejection of claims 1-28. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).

STATEMENT OF THE DECISION
We REVERSE.1

BACKGROUND
Appellants’ invention relates to equipment and methods used to
evaluate data associated with business functions and transactions, and more
particularly, to providing better estimates of consumer demand for products
and services. (Spec. 1, ll. 10-14).
Claim 1, reproduced below is representative of the subject matter on
appeal:
1. A method for estimating consumer demand for a product
based on sales data for the product at remotely located
equipment comprising:
receiving in an application server first inventory level
data from the remotely located equipment, wherein the first
inventory level data represents product inventory levels in the
remotely located equipment, the product inventory levels
recorded at multiple time intervals;
receiving in the application server equipment operating
status data from the remotely located equipment, wherein the
equipment operating status data represents equipment operating
status of the remotely located equipment, the equipment
operating status recorded at multiple time intervals;

1 Our decision will make reference to the Appellants’ Appeal Brief (“App.
Br,” filed August 30, 2010) and Reply Brief (“Reply Br.,” filed January 18,
2011) and the Examiner’s Answer (“Ans.,” mailed November 17, 2010).
Appeal 2011-005065
Application 11/302,759

3
arranging in the application server the received first
inventory level data and the received equipment operating
status data in associated levels of a data hierarchy of reliability,
quality and quantity;
storing in the application server the received first
inventory level data and the received equipment operating
status data and associated levels of the data hierarchy; and
calculating in the application server a consumer demand
estimate for the product based on the levels of the data
hierarchy of the stored first inventory level data and the stored
equipment operating status data.

THE REJECTION
The following rejection is before us for review:
Claims 1-28 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Defosse (US 2004/0133653 A1, pub. Jul. 8, 2004) in view
of Murray (US 2005/0043011 A1, pub. Feb. 24, 2005).

Independent Claim 1
Appellants argue that the Examiner erred in rejecting claim 1 under 35
U.S.C. § 103(a) because neither Defosse nor Murray teaches or suggests
“arranging in . . . the received first inventory level data and the received
equipment operating status data in associated levels of a data hierarchy of
reliability, quality and quantity,” as recited in the claim (App. Br. 13-15 and
Reply Br. 2-4). In contrast, the Examiner maintains that the rejection is
proper and directs our attention to paragraphs [0081], [0084], and [0106] of
Defosse as disclosing this limitation (Ans. 5, 18). We agree with
Appellants.
Defosse discloses a method and system for collecting and storing
vending machine transaction data (Defosse, Abstr.), and describes that the
Appeal 2011-005065
Application 11/302,759

4
vending machine includes an audit device that records and stores, inter alia,
DEX (Data Exchange) audit and event data and information regarding the
operational status of the vending machine (Defosse, paras. [0025] and
[0051]). Data is transmitted on demand and downloaded from the audit
device to a user handheld computing apparatus (Defosse, para. [0054]).
Defosse describes in paragraph [0084], on which the Examiner
primarily relies, that the audit device maintains a domain hierarchy in
nonvolatile memory that consists of one or more domain names and their
hierarchical relationship. However, this domain hierarchy is not a hierarchy
of “inventory level data and . . . equipment operating status data [arranged]
in associated levels . . . of reliability, quality, and quantity,” as called for in
claim 1. Instead, Defosse’s domain hierarchy defines a trust hierarchy, i.e.,
a hierarchical list of approved domain names, which is used to authenticate a
device, i.e., a user handheld computing apparatus, attempting to
communicate with the audit device as well as to enforce security policies
tied to the audit device business logic (Defosse, para. [0081]). Paragraph
[0106] of Defosse then references this domain hierarchy disclosed in
paragraphs [0081] and [0084]. Accordingly, the Examiner has not shown
how these domain hierarchy disclosures of Defosse are related to the data set
forth in paragraphs [0025], [0051], and [0054], as required to render obvious
the aforementioned aspect of independent claim 1.
The Examiner has not explained how the trust hierarchy disclosed in
Defosse teaches or suggests “arranging . . . inventory level data and . . .
equipment operating status data in associated levels of a data hierarchy of
reliability, quality and quantity,” as recited in claim 1. Therefore, we will
not sustain the Examiner’s rejection of claim 1 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a).
Appeal 2011-005065
Application 11/302,759

5
Independent Claims 11, 21, and 25
Independent claims 11, 21, and 25 contain language substantially
similar to the language of claim 1. Therefore, we will not sustain the
Examiner’s rejection of claims 11, 21, and 25 for the same reasons as set
forth above with respect to claim 1.
Dependent Claims 2-10, 12-20, 22-24, and 26-28
Each of claims 2-10, 12-20, 22-24, and 26-28 depends from one of
claims 1, 11, 21, and 25. We do not sustain the rejection of the dependent
claims under § 103(a) for the same reasons as set forth above with respect to
the independent claims. Cf. In re Fritch, 972 F.2d 1260, 1266 (Fed. Cir.
1992) (“[D]ependent claims are nonobvious if the independent claims from
which they depend are nonobvious.”).

DECISION
The Examiner’s rejection of claims 1-28 under 35 U.S.C § 103(a) is
reversed.

REVERSED

hh