Ex Parte HintzDownload PDFPatent Trial and Appeal BoardOct 13, 201612334060 (P.T.A.B. Oct. 13, 2016) Copy Citation UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE 12/334,060 12/12/2008 63551 7590 10/17/2016 KENNETH J. HINTZ 11727 LAKEWOOD LANE FAIRFAX STATION, VA 22039 FIRST NAMED INVENTOR Kenneth J. Hintz 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. GMU-08-022U 7509 EXAMINER GURSKI, AMANDA KAREN ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 3623 NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE 10/17/2016 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): khintz@gmu.edu ken@hintz.cc sue@hintz.cc PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07) UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD Ex parte KENNETH J. HINTZ Appeal2014-004979 Application 12/334,060 Technology Center 3600 Before MICHAEL W. KIM, BRUCE T. WIEDER, and ROBERT J. SILVERMAN, Administrative Patent Judges. KIM, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL STATEMENT OF CASE This is an appeal from the final rejection of claims 1-19. We have jurisdiction to review the case under 35 U.S.C. §§ 134 and 6. The Specification indicates the following concerning the claimed invention: Embodiments of the present invention may be used to analyze the actions of new types of systems such as the asymmetric, amorphous adversarial forces with limited observability. These embodiments apply observations of real, measurable actions, also referred to as activities, to infer the relative values of the top-most, system goals. Appeal2014-004979 Application 12/334,060 Spec. if 14. Independent claim 1 is illustrative: 1. A non-transitory computer readable medium comprising instructions configured to cause one or more processors to execute a method for inferring relative system goal values in an inverse goal lattice, the method comprising: a) identifying a plurality of goals for accomplishing at least one system objective, the "plurality of goals" including: i) including goals; ii) included goals; and iii) unrelated goals; b) applying an "ordering relation" to the "plurality of goals" to configure the inverse goal lattice that interconnects the "plurality of goals", the "inverse goal lattice["]: i) configured to have at least two levels, ii) configured to have at least one of the "including goals" on a higher level of the "at least two levels", at least one of the at least one "including goals" corresponding to at least one of the at least one system objective; and iii) configured to have at least one of the "included goals" on the lower level of the "at least two levels"; and c) assigning a goal value to each of the "plurality of goals" that are not connected to an included goal; d) determining at least one allocated goal value for at least one of the "including goals", each of the "at least one allocated goal value" determined by allocating the "goal value" of each of the "included goals" connected to the "at least one including goals" in the "inverse goal lattice" according to a goal value allocation function; and e) assigning an included goal value to each of the "including goals" using: i) "at least one allocated goal value"; and ii) a [sic] least one goal value accrual function. 2 Appeal2014-004979 Application 12/334,060 Claims 1 and 11 are rejected on the ground of non-statutory obviousness-type double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1 and 5 of Hintz (US 6,907,304 Bl, iss. June 14, 2005) in view of Official Notice. 1 Claims 1--4, 7-13, and 16-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Hintz in view of Mital (US 2003/0258766 Al, pub. Aug. 21, 2003). Claims 5, 6, 14, and 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Hintz in view of Mital and AAPA (Applicant Admitted Prior Art). We AFFIRM. ANALYSIS Non-Statutory Obviousness-Type Double Patenting We are unpersuaded the Examiner erred in asserting that independent claims 1 and 11 are unpatentable in view of independent claims 1 and 5 of U.S. Patent No. 6,907,304 Bl to Hintz in view of Applicant's Admitted Prior Art (AAPA). Br. 12-13. The Appellant asserts that the use of Mital in rejecting independent claims 1 and 11 on this ground is improper. Br. 12. The Appellant's assertion is misplaced as independent claims 1 and 11, in this ground, are rejected over a combination Hintz and AAPA, and not Mital. 2 1 Later designated as Applicant's Admitted Prior Art ("AAP A"). Final Act. 6; Ans. 5---6. 2 Mital is used in another ground of rejection under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a). That ground, however, is distinct from this ground, which is non-statutory obviousness-type double patenting. 3 Appeal2014-004979 Application 12/334,060 The Appellant asserts next that: Applicant believes that the Examiner cannot "pick and choose" concepts from unrelated prior art and combine with Hintz in order to make a case for a double patenting rejection but must find all claimed elements in order to make a double patenting rejection. Br. 12. As an initial matter, we are unclear as to how the cited prior art is unrelated. To the extent Appellant's argument is directed to the prior art Mital publication, Appellant's argument is misplaced for the reasons just discussed. To the extent Appellant's argument is directed to the prior art Hintz patent, we note that Hintz is the only cited reference that involves a common inventor of the claimed invention and the Appellant admits that Hintz involves the same general subject matter as the claimed invention. See Br. 12 ("The similarity used by the Examiner is the common at least two levels disclosed in both the current Application and Hintz which Applicant does not dispute.") Furthermore, the Appellant does not dispute the subject matter to which the Examiner takes Official Notice: "It has been established as Applicant's Admitted Prior Art that it is old and well known to have two or more levels of goals." Final Act. 6; Ans. 6. We are unpersuaded that "two or more levels of goals" are unrelated to the claimed invention. Insofar as the Appellant maybe asserting that Hintz alone does not disclose each and every aspect of the claimed invention, the assertion is misplaced, as the rejection is an obviousness-type double patenting rejection, with the Examiner citing both Hintz and the AAP A. Obviousness, by its nature, specifically allows for picking and choosing concepts from different prior art references, so long as the Examiner provides a sufficient rationale for why one of ordinary skill in the art would have done so. To that end, the 4 Appeal2014-004979 Application 12/334,060 Examiner has provided such a rationale for modifying Hintz in view of the AAP A on page 6 of the Final Office Action and pages 5---6 of the Answer, neither of which the Appellant has disputed. The Appellant asserts further that: The Examiner's fundamental misconception is based on the fact that while the invention and Hintz are both based on lattices, the direction of the accrual and apportionment functions, which are not specified in the definition of a lattice, are directed in opposite directions in the Application and Hintz. In the claimed invention it is a many to fewer operation and in Hintz it is a fewer to many operation. Br. 12. We are unpersuaded of Examiner error because the Appellant has not indicated sufficiently how the "many to fewer operation" language is reflected in each of independent claims 1 and 11. Specifically, while the Appellant may intend for the claimed invention to be directed to a "many to fewer operation," to distinguish from a "fewer to many operation," none of the terms "many," "fewer," or "operation" are recited in either independent claim 1 or 11. To be sure, the Appellant may intend for some other claim language in independent claims 1 and 11 to be the logical equivalent of a "many to fewer operation," however, the Appellant has not identified, and we are unable to ascertain independently, that claim language. 3 Absent such explicit analysis by the Appellant, we are unpersuaded of Examiner error. We sustain the non-statutory obviousness-type double patenting rejection of independent claims 1 and 11 in view of independent claims 1 and 5 of Hintz and the AAP A. 3 To the extent one may consider including goals to be "fewer" and included goals to be "many," Appellant does not persuasively argue why, e.g., the number of including goals could not be equal to the number of included goals. See Spec. i-f 23. 5 Appeal2014-004979 Application 12/334,060 Obviousness Rejection of Claims 1--4, 7-13, and 16-19 We are unpersuaded the Examiner erred in asserting that independent claims 1 and 11 are unpatentable over Hintz in view of Mital. Br. 13-16. We have reviewed the Appellant's assertions, and determine that the Examiner's findings and rationales on pages 6-7 of the Answer are fully responsive. Accordingly, we adopt them as our own. We sustain the rejection of independent claims 1 and 11, and the rejection of claims 2--4, 7-10, 12, 13, and 16-19, each of which depend ultimately from one of independent claims 1 and 11. Obviousness Rejection of Claims 5, 6, 14, and 15 The Appellant does not set forth separate arguments concerning the rejection dependent claims 5, 6, 14, and 15 as unpatentable over Hintz in view of Mital and AAP A. Accordingly, this rejection is summarily sustained. DECISION We AFFIRM the rejection of claims 1-19. No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a). See 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a)(l )(iv). AFFIRMED 6 Copy with citationCopy as parenthetical citation