Ex Parte Hunt et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Mar 20, 2017

12021916 (P.T.A.B. Mar. 20, 2017)

United States Patent and Trademark Office
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
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE FIRST NAMED INVENTOR ATTORNEY DOCKET NO. CONFIRMATION NO.
12/021,916 01/29/2008 Herbert Dennis Hunt IRIC-0016-P01 4721
43520 7590 03/22/2017
STRATEGIC PATENTS P.C.
P.O. BOX 920629
NEEDHAM, MA 02492
EXAMINER
STERRETT, JONATHAN G
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
3623
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
03/22/2017 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):
patents @ stratpat. com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte HERBERT DENNIS HUNT, JOHN RANDALL WEST,
MARSHALL ASHBY GIBBS JR., BRADLEY MICHAEL GRIGLIONE,
GREGORY DAVID NEIL HUDSON, ANDREA BASILICO,
ARVID C. JOHNSON, CHERYL G. BERGEON,
CRAIG JOSEPH CHAPA, ALBERTO AGOSTINELLI,
JAY ALAN YUSKO, and TREVOR MASON
Appeal 2014-008390
Application 12/021,9161
Technology Center 3600
Before, JOSEPH A. FISCHETTI, NINA L. MEDLOCK, and
ROBERT J. SILVERMAN, Administrative Patent Judges.
FISCHETTI, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
1 Appellants identify Information Resources, Inc., as the real party in
interest. Br. 2.
1
Appeal 2014-008390
Application 12/021,916
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Appellants seek our review under 35 U.S.C. § 134 of the Examiner’s
final rejection of claims 1—4, 6, 11—13, 15—17, 19, 20, 22, 44, 47, 62, and 63.
We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
SUMMARY OF DECISION
We AFFIRM.
THE INVENTION
Appellants claim methods and systems for analyzing data associated
with the sales and marketing efforts of enterprises (Spec. para. 4).
Claim 1, reproduced below, is representative of the subject matter on
appeal.
1. A method comprising:
identifying commercial data from a plurality of commercial
data sources;
creating and storing a user task setting within an analytic
platform;
associating the user task setting with a user login setting for a user,
wherein the user login setting is based on an availability condition including
at least one access rule and at least one releasibility rule for the commercial
data selected for the user from a granting matrix that stores a hierarchy of a
plurality of access rules and a plurality of releasability rules for the
commercial data, the availability condition selected according to an
affiliation between the user and one or more of the commercial data
sources;
providing a data visualization user interface to the analytic
platform;
enabling the user to perform an analysis using the data
visualization user interface, wherein the analysis permitted to the user:
is based at least in part on the user task setting; and
2
Appeal 2014-008390
Application 12/021,916
utilizes unobfuscated data from the one or more data sources
with which the user is affiliated, and uses obfuscated data from at
least one other data source; and
presenting an analytic result to the user through the data
visualization user interface.
THE REJECTION
The Examiner relies upon the following as evidence of
unpatentability:
Rubin US 2006/0206485 A1 Sept. 14, 2006
Web.archive.org, PMGBenchmarking.com, (“PMG”) “Measure Your
Performance,” pp. 1—3, June 7, 2002 (hereafter Reference A)
“Dimensions: Executive Summary,” The Performance Measurement
Group, pp. 1—4, July 2000 (hereafter Reference B)
Web.archive.org, PMGBenchmarking.com, “Questions frequently
asked by development professionals considering a subscription to the
Product Development Benchmarking Series,” pp. 1—4, October 6, 2000
(hereafter Reference C)
Web.archive.org, PMGBenchmarking.com, “Supply-Chain
management Benchmarking Series — Tips & Slips, Volume 4: Subscriber
Site Navigation,” pp. 1—11, February 8, 2001 (hereafter Reference D)
Web.archive.org, PMGBenchmarking.com, “Our Mission,” pp. 1,
September 18, 2000 (hereafter Reference E)
Web.archive.org, PMGBenchmarking.com, “SAP Partnership,” pp. 1,
December 6, 2000 (hereafter Reference F)
Web.archive.org, PMGBenchmarking.com, “SAP Partnership —
Continuous Performance Assessments,” pp. 1, February 10, 2001
(hereafter Reference G)
3
Appeal 2014-008390
Application 12/021,916
Web.archive.org, PMGBenchmarking.com, “Supply-Chain
Management Benchmarking Series,” pp. 1—3, February 8, 2001
(hereafter Reference H)
The following rejection is before us for review.
Claims 1—4, 6, 11—13, 15—17, 19, 20, 22, 44, 47, 62, and 63 are
rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Rubin and
PMG, References A through H.
FINDINGS OF FACT
1. We adopt the Examiner’s findings as set forth on pages 4—11 of the
Answer, and as set forth on pages 2-16 of the Final Action.
2. Rubin discloses
CLS involves providing different levels of clearance to
different cells in the database. FIG. 9A illustrates an
embodiment of a database 905 having cells with different
security clearance requirements. Database 905 includes
cells having different shadings. The different shadings
indicate different clearances required to view the data in
a particular cell. Database 905 includes four
columns 911-914 and rows 921-926. The cell located at
column 912 and row 921 has a different shading from the
cell at column 912 and row 922. This indicates that a
different clearance requirement is needed to view the
data within those two cells. A user accessible of a
database for implementing CLS is generated in a similar
manner as that of the database that implements RLS.
Thus, the steps of method 440 of FIG. 4B can be
implemented to generate a user-accessible of a database
with CLS.
Para. 165.
4
Appeal 2014-008390
Application 12/021,916
3. Rubin discloses, “Row level security (RLS) and cell level security
(CLS) are implemented in a database to provide secure dynamic access to
database data.” Abstract
4. PMG discloses, “subscribers are only able to access aggregate data.
Both the data entry and reporting sites employ password-protected
registration so that only authorized users can access data.” PMG page 3,
Reference C.
5. PMG discloses “The Performance Scorecard helps you assess your
latest practices and performance, but, more importantly, it directs you to
specific areas where performance gaps exist enabling you to identify an
appropriate improvement plan.” PMG page 2, Reference A.
ANALYSIS
35 U.S.C. § 103 REJECTION
We will sustain the rejection under 35 U.S.C. § 103.
The Appellants argued claim 1 as representative and concede that the
remaining claims stand or fall with claim 1. (Appeal Br. 7) See 37 C.F.R.
§ 41.37(c)(l)(iv) (2015).
Appellants do not argue that the cited sections in each of PMG and
Rubin fail to disclose the claim limitations which the Examiner assigned
them, but rather that the Examiner’s reasons for motivation to combine are
lacking and/or that the reasons constitute hindsight reconstruction. (Appeal
Br. 11).
5
Appeal 2014-008390
Application 12/021,916
Appellants specifically argue,
In the current case, the system described by The PMG
References has its own data access policy in place -
namely, that company data is never shared with
non-company sources. Although that access policy may
be simplistic from the point of view of other database­
using organizations (like those in an intelligence
community), the policy makes sense in the context of
PMG's customers. Indeed, the Examiner does not
identify any shortcoming or problem with this PMG data
access policy. Thus, artificially grafting an additional
data access policy onto the PMG system is committing
the same error from both the NTP case and the Kinetic
Concepts case: one of the access policies would be
superfluous (as in NTP), and is an attempt to needless
replace an independently and adequately functioning
aspect of the PMG system (as in Kinetic Concepts).
(Appeal Br. 12 (emphasis omitted)).
We disagree with Appellants. The Examiner did make findings
concerning shortcomings in PMG which would accommodate a community
based hierarchy, such as disclosed by Rubin, thereby identifying a need for
an internal hierarchy within the company itself:
In Reference A page 1 paragraph 2, PMG states
“Share results with key management using our
objective online reports.” From this one of
ordinary skill in the art would understand that the
sensitive data gathered by PMG is not data that
would be shared across the company itself, but
only with “key management.”
(Answer 6).
Furthermore, we disagree with Appellants that the Examiner engaged
in hindsight reconstruction by using knowledge gleaned only from
6
Appeal 2014-008390
Application 12/021,916
Appellants’ disclosure. (Appeal Br. 12). As is apparent from the Final
Action (7—9), the Examiner’s rationale is limited to only knowledge which
was within the level of ordinary skill at the time the claimed invention was
made and thus, we find no error with the rejection. Specifically, the
Examiner found, “Applicant is applying a known technique, in this case
providing database access including at least one access rule and at least one
releasibility rule for the database data selected for the user from a granting
matrix, as disclosed by Rubin . . . .” (Final Act. 8). “PMG and Rubin both
address providing database information for users based on access control for
the user, thus PMG and Rubin are analogous art.” Id. “Furthermore, one of
ordinary skill in the art would recognize the benefit of the resulting
flexibility of providing access to benchmarking data to company employees
based on the hierarchy of the company organization.” Id. at 9. As such, we
find that the Examiner properly referenced the level of ordinary skill in the
art as disclosed by PMG and Rubin, rather than gleaning from Appellants’
disclosure, as alleged by Appellants. “Any judgment on obviousness is in a
sense necessarily a reconstruction based upon hindsight reasoning, but so
long as it takes into account only knowledge which was within the level of
ordinary skill at the time the claimed invention was made and does not
include knowledge gleaned only from applicant’s disclosure, such a
reconstruction is proper.” In re McLaughlin, 443 F.2d 1392, 1395 (CCPA
1971).
We also agree with the Examiner’s finding that, “PMG and Rubin
both address providing database information for users based on access
control for the user, thus PMG and Rubin are analogous art.” Id at 8. Two
7
Appeal 2014-008390
Application 12/021,916
criteria have evolved for determining whether prior art is analogous:
(1) whether the art is from the same field of endeavor, regardless of the
problem addressed, and (2) if the reference is not within the field of the
inventor’s endeavor, whether the reference still is reasonably pertinent to the
particular problem with which the inventor is involved. In re Clay, 966 F.2d
656, 659 (Fed. Cir. 1992). (citing In re Deminski, 796 F.2d 436, 442 (Fed.
Cir. 1986); In re Wood, 599 F.2d 1032, 1036 (CCPA 1979)). We find, at the
very least, that both the PMG and Rubin references deal with the similar
problem of protecting data within a database. Rubin discloses, “Row level
security (RLS) and cell level security (CLS) are implemented in a database
to provide secure dynamic access to database data.” (FF. 3) Similarly,
PMG discloses “subscribers are only able to access aggregate data. Both the
data entry and reporting sites employ password-protected registration so that
only authorized users can access data.” (FF. 4).
Concerning the Examiner’s rationale for combining, Appellants
maintain,
That is, if one is engaging in an analysis of this
nature, then one necessarily wants as much
relevant data as possible. There is no point in
artificially limiting “lower level employees” to “a
few rows of data,” when more rows are available,
because doing so can result in misleading
analytics. In this case, the Examiner’s
contemplated scenario is actually a disincentive to
combine, not a motivation.
(Appeal Br. 13).
We disagree with Appellants. Appellants’ argument assumes that the
data gathered by the benchmarking process in PMG require access by every
8
Appeal 2014-008390
Application 12/021,916
user involved to be effective. This argument fails because PMG explicitly
discloses that the PMG scorecard identifies specific areas where
performance gaps exist. (FF. 5). As such, we find that one having ordinary
skill in the art looking to the viable access feature disclosed by Rubin would
understand that this would not be problematic to the scorecard system of
PMR, so long as accessibility to the specific areas by the corresponding
user(s) was allowed to continue.
In addition, we find the Examiner’s reasons for combining as set forth
on pages 5—11 of the Answer are reasonable and well-articulated, and hence
are without error.
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
We conclude the Examiner did not err in rejecting claims 1—4, 6,
11-13, 15-17, 19, 20, 22,44, 47, 62, and 63 under 35 U.S.C. § 103.
DECISION
The decision of the Examiner to reject claims 1—4, 6, 11—13, 15—17,
19, 20, 22, 44, 47, 62, and 63 is affirmed.
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
9