Ex Parte Hintz

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Oct 13, 2016

12334060 (P.T.A.B. Oct. 13, 2016)

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