Ex Parte Seelig

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Jan 27, 2017

11414821 (P.T.A.B. Jan. 27, 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.
20103/IT1115 2809
EXAMINER
GURSKI, AMANDA KAREN
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
3623
MAIL DATE DELIVERY MODE
11/414,821 05/01/2006
83417 7590 01/27/2017
AT&T Legal Department - HFZ
ATTN. Patent Docketing
One AT&T Way
Room 2A-207
Bedminster, NJ 07921
Michael J. Seelig
01/27/2017 PAPER
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.
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte MICHAEL J. SEELIG
Appeal 2015-003978
Application 11/414,8211
Technology Center 3600
Before HUBERT C. LORIN, SHEILA F. MCSHANE, and
AMEE A. SHAH, Administrative Patent Judges.
LORIN, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Michael Seelig (Appellant) seeks our review under 35 U.S.C. § 134 of
the final rejection of claims 1—14, 36-43, 45^49, 56—59, 63, 68, and 69. We
have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b) (2002).
SUMMARY OF DECISION
We REVERSE.
1 The Appellant identifies AT&T Intellectual Property I, L.P. as the real
party in interest. Appeal Br. 2.
Appeal 2015-003978
Application 11/414,821
THE INVENTION
Claim 1, reproduced below, is illustrative of the subject matter on
appeal.
1. A method to activate a distribution channel, the method comprising:
obtaining first information concerning a client company that is
to provide a distribution channel on behalf of a host company;
electronically triggering, using a processor, at least some of a
plurality of host company departments to process the first information
to evaluate at least one of the client company or the distribution
channel;
electronically processing, using the processor, machine readable
evaluation indicators provided by the at least some of the plurality of
host company departments and representative of respective evaluation
decisions associated with the at least some of the plurality of host
company departments to determine an overall evaluation result; and
after the overall evaluation result indicates approval of the distribution
channel,
electronically implementing, using the processor, the
distribution channel by:
establishing, over a communication network, a secure
communication interface between the host company and a web
application implemented by the client company, the secure
communication interface to carry second information describing
characteristics, which are updateable in real-time, of host
company services to be provided by the host company for
distribution by the client company;
configuring the distribution channel using a profile
associated with the client company, the profile to provide the
client company with access to real-time pricing data specified
by the host company for the host company services to be
distributed by the client company, the real-time pricing data
determined specifically for the client company by a partner
relationship management application associated with the host
company based on (1) a combination of profile information
2
Appeal 2015-003978
Application 11/414,821
from the profile and (2) a priority specified for the client
company by the host company, the combination of profile
information being based on the first information and including
service type information, service quota information, pricing
discount information, and billing and compensation procedure
information associated with the host company services to be
distributed by the client company; and
obtaining a screenshot of the web application that is
based on at least some of the second information to validate
operation of the distribution channel.
THE REJECTION
The Examiner relies upon the following as evidence of
unpatentability:
Horstmann
Ben-Meir
Mikurak
US 6,009,525 Dec. 28, 1999
US 2003/0014326 A1 Jan. 16, 2003
US 2004/0064351 A1 Apr. 1, 2004
The following rejection is before us for review:
1. Claims 1—14, 36-43, 45^49, 56—59, 63, 68, and 69 are rejected under
35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Ben-Meir, Horstmann
and Mikurak.
ISSUE
Did the Examiner err in rejecting claims 1—14, 36-43, 45 49, 56—59,
63, 68 and 69 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Ben-Meir,
Horstmann and Mikurak?
3
Appeal 2015-003978
Application 11/414,821
ANALYSIS
All the claims call for
configuring [a] distribution channel using a profile associated with [a]
client company, the profile to provide the client company with access
to real-time pricing data specified by [a] host company for the host
company services to be distributed by the client company, the real­
time pricing data determined specifically for the client company by a
partner relationship management application associated with the host
company based on (1) a combination of profile information from the
profile and (2) a priority specified for the client company by the host
company.
See independent claims 1 and 36. Independent claims 45 and 63 are
similarly limited.
The Examiner found said claim limitation in Ben-Meir at paras. 61,
91, 96, 129, and 135. Final Act. 7—8. The Examiner added: “Note: ranking
is the same as priority.” Id. at 8.
The Appellant disagrees. The Examiner-cited passages in Ben-Meir
are analyzed to show that
[w]hen interpreted correctly, Ben-Meir describes a vendor ranking
being determined based on pricing data, which is the opposite of
pricing data being determined based on a ranking (or a priority).
Thus, Ben-Meir fails to teach or suggest real-time pricing data being
determined specifically for a client company based on, in part, a
priority specified for the client company by a host company, as set
forth in claim 1.
Appeal Br. 11.
The Examiner responded by advocating a different interpretation of
said Ben-Meir passages. “Further, the phrasing of the limitation [at issue
here] in the instant independent claims that states,... is not actively
claiming these steps.” Ans. 5.
4
Appeal 2015-003978
Application 11/414,821
We have reviewed the claim limitation at issue and the cited Ben-Meir
passages and find that the Appellant has the better argument.
Para. 135 of Ben-Meir discusses “the bid ranking process”. It
expressly states that
All or part of the bid solicitation document may also be used in the bid
ranking process. The part of the document used in the ranking
process can be any number of requirements, or even a single
requirement such as the price of a specific item.
Emphasis added. This passage clearly discloses ranking based on price.
Claim 1, for example, specifically states that “the real-time pricing
data determined specifically for the client company ... based on ... a priority
specified for the client company by the host company.” This claim
limitation requires pricing data based on a specified priority. We disagree
that that is not clearly claimed.
Ben-Meir discloses a bid ranking determining process that depends on
price. The claims describe a price determining process that depends on a
specified prioritization. Even if “ranking is the same as priority” (Final Act.
8), the claim limitation does not read on what Ben-Meir discloses as the
Examiner has found. The finding is not supported by the evidence.
A prima facie case of obviousness has not been made out in the first
instance by a preponderance of the evidence. Accordingly, the rejection is
not sustained.
CONCLUSION
The rejection of claims 1—14, 36-43, 45^49, 56—59, 63, 68, and 69
under 35 U.S.C. §103(a) as being unpatentable over Ben-Meir, Horstmann
and Mikurak is reversed.
5
Appeal 2015-003978
Application 11/414,821
DECISION
The decision of the Examiner to reject claims 1—14, 36-43, 45^49,
56—59, 63, 68, and 69 is reversed.
REVERSED
6