Ex Parte Shan

Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences

Aug 4, 2011

11001453 (B.P.A.I. Aug. 4, 2011)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
____________

BEFORE THE BOARD OF PATENT APPEALS
AND INTERFERENCES
____________

Ex parte JERRY Z. SHAN
____________

Appeal 2010-005447
Application 11/001,453
Technology Center 3600
____________

Before MURRIEL E. CRAWFORD, HUBERT C. LORIN, and BIBHU R.
MOHANTY, Administrative Patent Judges.

MOHANTY, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL
Appeal 2010-005447
Application 11/001,453

2
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
The Appellant seeks our review under 35 U.S.C. § 134 (2002) of the
final rejection of claims 1-6, 8-11, and 29-301 which are all the claims
pending in the application. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b)
(2002).

SUMMARY OF THE DECISION
We REVERSE.

THE INVENTION
The Appellant’s claimed invention is directed to a system for
forecasting with model-based probability density function estimates (Spec.
[0005]). Claim 1, reproduced below with the numbering in brackets added,
is representative of the subject matter of appeal.

1. A computer-readable storage medium storing a program that,
when executed by a processor, causes the processor to:
select a reference set of profiles from previous periods;
[1] estimate model parameters of a time series based on the reference
set, wherein the model parameters comprise a variance for a hidden
noise source;
calculate a probability density function for the time series, wherein the
probability density function is based at least in part on the estimated
variance; [2] and
generate a forecast from the probability density function.

1 The Appeal Brief states that claim 18 is cancelled (Br. 5) and it is not
included in the Claim Appendix. The reference to claim 18 being appealed
at page 5 of the Brief is therefore considered to be a typographical error.
Appeal 2010-005447
Application 11/001,453

3
THE REJECTIONS
The Examiner relies upon the following as evidence in support of the
rejections:
Crosswhite US 6,611,726 B1 Aug. 26, 2003
James US 6,625,569 B2 Sep. 23, 2003

The following rejections are before us for review:
1. Claims 1-6, 8-11, and 29-30 are rejected under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a) as unpatentable over Crosswhite and James.

THE ISSUES
With regards to claim 1 the issue turns on whether it would have been
obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to combine the teachings of
Crosswhite and James to meet the limitations of the claim. The issue with
the remaining claims turns on a similar issue.

FINDINGS OF FACT
We find the following enumerated findings of fact (FF) are supported
at least by a preponderance of the evidence:2
FF1. Crosswhite has disclosed a method for determining optimal time
series forecasting parameters (Title).
FF2. Crosswhite has disclosed a method for forecasting a value of a
dependent variable such as product demand, in a future time period. A

2 See Ethicon, Inc. v. Quigg, 849 F.2d 1422, 1427 (Fed. Cir. 1988)
(explaining the general evidentiary standard for proceedings before the
Patent Office).
Appeal 2010-005447
Application 11/001,453

4
dependent variable for which a value is to be forecast has historical data
gathered and a determined forecasting equation made. An error value is
determined by comparing the forecast value with the historical data.
FF3. James has disclosed a method of anomaly detection from time-
correlated sensor data (Abstract).
FF4. James at Col. Col. 22:33-26:15 discloses a Dynamical Model and
Model Fitting as components of the process.
FF5. James at Col. 26:1-5 discloses that the value E1 represents a variance
of a mean zero Gaussian noise.
FF6. James at Col. 38:6-10 discloses that one can represent the forecast as a
mean value of the predicated data and the probability density functions.

ANALYSIS
The Appellant argues that the rejection of claim 1 is improper because
the rejection of record fails to render obvious the limitations of the claim
(Br.10-11).
In contrast, the Examiner has determined that the prior art references
of Crosswhite and James disclose the cited claim limitations and that the
combination of reference would have been obvious (Ans. 3-5, 8-9). The
rejection of record set forth by the Examiner has determined that that
Crosswhite does not discuss “a variance for a hidden noise in the model
parameters” or the “probability density function is based at least on the
estimated variance” (Ans. 4) but that Jones discloses these features and that
the combination of references would have been obvious (Ans. 4).
We agree with the Appellant. In KSR Int'l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550
U.S. 398 (2007) the Supreme Court at 418 noted that in an obviousness
Appeal 2010-005447
Application 11/001,453

5
analysis that“[R]ejections on obviousness grounds cannot be sustained by
mere conclusory statements; instead, there must be some articulated
reasoning with some rational underpinning to support the legal conclusion of
obviousness”. Here, the claim limitation [1] requires a medium storing a
program to:
[1] estimate model parameters of a time series based on the reference
set, wherein the model parameters comprise a variance for a hidden
noise source;
calculate a probability density function for the time series, wherein
the probability density function is based at least in part on the
estimated variance (claim 1, emphasis added).

Thus, the claim limitation requires the specific use of a model parameter to
comprise a variance for a hidden noise source and that the probability
density function is calculated at least based in part on the estimated
variance in some manner. Here, there is not some articulated reasoning
with some rational underpinning to support the legal conclusion of
obviousness to meet these cited claim limitations without impermissible
hindsight. The Examiners rejection has acknowledged that Crosswhite does
not discuss “a variance for a hidden noise in the model parameters” or that
the “probability density function is based at least on the estimated variance”
(Ans. 4) and we do not see articulated reasoning with rational
underpinnings to combine the two references to meet the limitations of
claim 1. Jones does disclose “a variance of a mean zero Gaussian noise”
(FF5) but there is insufficient articulated reasoning with rational
underpinnings to combine it with Crosswhite to include the probability
density function being calculated at least based in part on the estimated
variance in the manner claimed without impermissible hindsight.
Appeal 2010-005447
Application 11/001,453

6
For these reasons the rejection of claim 1 and its dependent claims is
not sustained. Claim 11 contains a similar limitation and the rejection of
claim 11 and its dependent claims is not sustained for these same reasons.

CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
We conclude that Appellant has shown that the Examiner erred in
rejecting claims 1-6, 8-11, and 29-30 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
unpatentable over Crosswhite and James.

DECISION
The Examiner’s rejection of claims 1-6, 8-11, and 29-30 is reversed.

REVERSED

MP