Ex Parte Hamilton et alDownload PDFPatent Trial and Appeal BoardMay 26, 201612004356 (P.T.A.B. May. 26, 2016) Copy Citation UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE 12/004,356 12/20/2007 107681 7590 05/31/2016 NCR Corporation 3097 Satelite Boulevard Building 700, 2nd Floor, Law Department Duluth, GA 30096 FIRST NAMED INVENTOR Carol J. Hamilton 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. 14110.00 9366 EXAMINER HEWITT II, CAL VIN L ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 3685 NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE 05/31/2016 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): PTOMail.Law@ncr.com PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07) UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD Ex parte CAROL J. HAMIL TON and SHARON J. DICKIE Appeal2014-002800 Application 12/004,356 Technology Center 3600 Before BIBHU R. MOHANTY, NINA L. MEDLOCK, and BRADLEY B. BAY AT, Administrative Patent Judges. MOHANTY, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL STATEMENT OF THE CASE The Appellants seek our review under 35 U.S.C. § 134 of the final rejection of claims 1-28, which are all the claims pending in the application. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b ). SUMMARY OF THE DECISION We REVERSE. Appeal2014-002800 Application 12/004,356 THE INVENTION The Appellants' claimed invention is directed to a device management system for at least one managed device to produce weighted performance data (Spec. 3, para. 2). Claim 1, reproduced below, is representative of the subject matter on appeal. 1. A device management system comprising: a processor; a data storage device; and a network connection; wherein the data storage device being arranged to store weighting data associated with at least one managed device, and wherein the processor being arranged to: a. receive performance metric data from the at least one managed device via the network connection, the performance metric data including: i. transaction volumes for the at least one managed device, ii. transaction approval rates for the at least one managed device, iii. session time per transaction on the at least one managed device, iv. incidents resulting in reduced performance, and v. incidents causing outages for the at least one managed device; b. access the weighting data from the data storage device; c. weight a portion of the performance metric data associated with the at least one managed device with respect to a portion of weighting data associated with the at least one managed device, to produce weighted performance data; and d. process the weighted performance data to prioritize events occurring on the at least one managed device. 2 Appeal2014-002800 Application 12/004,356 THE REJECTIONS The following rejections are before us for review: Claims 1-28 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Pittarelli (US 2003/0061271 Al, pub. Mar. 27, 2003), Herring (US 7,383,191 Bl, iss. June 3, 2008), and Newcombe (US 6,349,325 Bl, iss. Feb. 19, 2002). FINDINGS OF FACT We have determined that the findings of fact in the Analysis section below are supported at least by a preponderance of the evidence. 1 ANALYSIS The Appellants argue that the rejection of claim 1 is improper because claim limitation "c" identified in the claim above is not shown in the prior art (App. Br. 6, 7). In contrast, the Examiner has determined that the cited claim limitation is disclosed by Pittarelli at column 6, lines 33-35; and Herring at cols. 13:30-46, 18:66-19:2 (Final Act. 4, Ans. 6, 7). We agree with the Appellants. Claim limitation "c" requires the system to: weight a portion of the performance metric data associated with the at least one managed device with respect to a portion of weighting data associated with the at least one managed device, to produce weighted performance data. 1 See Ethicon, Inc. v. Quigg, 849 F.2d 1422, 1427 (Fed. Cir. 1988) (explaining the general evidentiary standard for proceedings before the Patent Office). 3 Appeal2014-002800 Application 12/004,356 Here, Pittatrelli at the cited portion of column 6, lines 33-35, simply fails to disclose this claim limitation and is directed to processing video signals for viewing. Pitarelli at paragraph 36 discloses downloading data from a central server. Herring at column 13, lines 30-46 does disclose using constant weighting K to events in the LCW (likely cause window) but not in the particular manner claimed in claim limitation "c" with respect to the at least one managed device. Herring at column 18:66-19:22 discloses a formula for the total money cost C. Here, the above citations to the prior art simply fail to disclose or suggest claim limitation "c" or provide any articulated reasoning with rational underpinnings for such a modification, and therefore, a prima facie case has not been established. For these reasons the rejection of claim 1 and its dependent claims is not sustained. The remaining claims contain a similar limitation and the rejection of these claims is not sustained as well. CONCLUSIONS OF LAW We conclude that Appellants have shown that the Examiner erred in rejecting the claims as listed in the Rejection section above. DECISION The Examiner's rejection of claims 1-28 is reversed. REVERSED 4 Copy with citationCopy as parenthetical citation