Ex Parte SmithDownload PDFPatent Trial and Appeal BoardOct 14, 201411748734 (P.T.A.B. Oct. 14, 2014) Copy Citation UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE ____________ BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD ____________ Ex parte FRANCIS SMITH ____________ Appeal 2012-005748 Application 11/748,734 Technology Center 2100 ____________ Before JOHN A. EVANS, CATHERINE SHIANG, and JOHN P. PINKERTON, Administrative Patent Judges. EVANS, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL Appellant1 seeks our review2 under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) of the Examiner’s final rejection of Claims 1–173 as obvious. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). We AFFIRM.4 1 The Real Party in Interest is eBay Inc. 2 We have considered in this decision only those arguments Appellant actually raised in the Briefs. Any other arguments that Appellant could have made, but chose not to make in the Briefs are deemed to be waived. See 37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(1)(iv). 3 App. Br. 1. 4 Our Decision refers to Appellant’s Appeal Brief filed August 31, 2011 (“Br.”); Examiner’s Answer mailed December 5, 2011 (“Ans.”); Final Office Action mailed March 16, 2011 (“Final Rej.”); and the original Specification filed May 15, 2007 (“Spec.”). Appeal 2012-005748 Application 11/748,734 2 STATEMENT OF THE CASE The claims relate to a method for defining grouping of data, across multiple data sources using variables and functions. See Abstract. Claims 1, 9, and 15 are independent. An understanding of the invention can be derived from a reading of independent Claim 1, which is specifically argued by Appellant and which is reproduced below: 1. A method comprising: receiving key data; receiving a statement belonging to a generic language relating to a plurality of entities, the statement comprising a plurality of variables defined by the generic language; defining, based on the statement and the key data, a grouping of data across a plurality of databases, the grouping of data corresponding to at least one entity; and providing, based on the statement and the key data, access to the grouping of data, based on data-dependent routing. Appeal 2012-005748 Application 11/748,734 3 References and Rejections The Examiner relies upon the prior art as follows: Hinks US 5,678,039 Oct. 14, 1997 Blinn US 5,974,418 Oct. 26, 1999 Reisman US 2003/0229900 A1 Dec. 11, 2003 Goodman US 2006/0059253 A1 Mar. 16, 2006 Jonas US 2006/0010119 A1 Jan. 12, 2006 The claims stand rejected as follows:5 1. Claims 1–5, 8, 15, and 16 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as obvious over Jonas and Goodman. Ans. 4–10. 2. Claims 6 and 17 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as obvious over Jonas, Goodman, and Blinn. Ans. 10–11. 3. Claim 7 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as obvious over Jonas, Goodman, and Reisman. Ans. 12. 4. Claims 9–12 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as obvious over Jonas, Goodman, and Hinks. Ans. 12–16. 5. Claim 13 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as obvious over Jonas, Goodman, Hinks, and Blinn. Ans. 16. 6. Claim 14 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as obvious over Jonas, Goodman, Hinks, and Reisman. Ans. 16–17. 5 Based on Appellant’s arguments in the Appeal Brief, we will decide the appeal on the basis of claims as set forth below. See 37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(1)(vii). Appeal 2012-005748 Application 11/748,734 4 ANALYSIS6 We have reviewed the Examiner’s rejections in light of Appellant’s arguments that the Examiner has erred. We disagree with Appellant’s conclusions. INDEPENDENT CLAIMS 1 AND 15 Appellant argues independent Claims 1 and 15 as a group. Br. 13. As discussed below, Appellant contends that the prior art fails to teach or suggest certain claimed limitations. Defining, based on the statement and the key data, a grouping of data across a plurality of databases. Appellant contends that the Examiner improperly equates “searching and collecting data records from databases based on identifier and user- defined criteria or rules,” as taught by Jonas, with “defining, based on the statement and the key data, a grouping of data across a plurality of databases, the grouping of data corresponding to at least one entity,” as recited in Claim 1. Br. 14. Appellant contends that Jonas’ user-defined criteria or rules relate to the performance of various functions unrelated to searching or collecting data records from databases. Appellant quotes Jonas: [T]he algorithm receives the standardized data and analyzes the 6 Appellant traverses the rejection of Claims 18, 19, and 20 under 35 U.S.C. §§ 112 and 103. Br. 9. However, these claims are not before us in view of their cancellation in the Amendment after Final Rejection filed May 16, 2011. Appeal 2012-005748 Application 11/748,734 5 received data prior to storage or query in the database by: (a) comparing the received data to user-defined criteria or rules to perform several functions, including . . . (i) name standardization . . . (ii) address hygiene . . . (iii) field testing or transformations . . . (iv) user-defined formatting. Br. 14. Rather than searching or collecting data records from databases, Appellant argues that Jonas teaches searching for additional information, which can supplement the received data. Br. 14–15. In response, the Examiner finds that Jonas teaches: (1) “key data” as an identifier representing one or more entities (e.g., individual’s name, address(es), telephone number(s), credit card number(s), social security number, etc.); (2) “the statement belonging to a generic language” as user- defined formatting of an individual’s social security number, phone number and name as user-defined criteria or rules; (3) “grouping of data” as searching and collecting data records from multiple databases or data sources based on identifier (e.g., an individual’s name referred to as the claimed key data) and user-defined formatting of user social security number, phone number and home address (such as phone number or home address referred to as the statement), wherein searching and collecting mean by showing database records being retrieved (or queried) and analyzing the retrieved records based upon identifier and user-defined formatting; and (4) “defining” as building a hash key based upon the enhanced data (referred to as claimed “grouping of data”). Ans. 18. Appellant did not file a Reply Brief to rebut the Examiner’s Response. We are not persuaded that the Examiner has erred. Appeal 2012-005748 Application 11/748,734 6 Providing, based on the statement and the key data, access to the grouping of data, based on data-dependent routing. Appellant contends that the Examiner improperly equates “providing, based on the statement and the key data, access to the grouping of data, based on data-dependent routing,” as recited in Claim 1, with “accessing databases to retrieve records based on identifier and user-defined criteria or rules,” as taught by Jonas, in combination with the finding that “Goodman et al. discloses the feature of data-dependent routing.” Br. 16. In response, the Examiner finds that Jonas teaches providing access to databases to retrieve (query) data records based on an identifier (e.g., an individual’s name, i.e., “key data”) and user-defined criteria or rules (such as individual’s address in user-defined formatting) referred to as “the statement belonging to a generic language,” and analyzing the retrieved data records for a match to identifiers in the received data. However, Jonas may not be specific to the feature of access to grouping of data based on data-dependent routing. Goodman discloses this feature as the ability to route requests from client(s) to a particular server from a group of servers based on the data passed within the request. Ans. 19. Appellant did not file a Reply Brief to rebut the Examiner’s Response. We are not persuaded that the Examiner has erred. Providing, based on the statement and the key data. Appellant contends that Jonas fails to teach “providing, based on the statement and the key data,” because the claimed recitation differs from “the mere retrieval of ‘a group of records including identifiers similar to the Appeal 2012-005748 Application 11/748,734 7 identifiers in the received data.’” According to Appellant, this is because the retrieval of records according to Jonas’ algorithm is not the same as providing access to the grouping of data based on receiving a statement, as claimed. Moreover, Appellant contends Goodman fails to cure this deficiency. Br. 17. The Examiner finds that Jonas teaches a plurality of variables as user- defined formatting of user social security number, phone number, and name. Ans. 5. Appellant did not file a Reply Brief to rebut the Examiner’s Response. We are not persuaded that the Examiner has erred in rejecting independent Claims 1 and 15. DEPENDENT CLAIMS 2–5, 8, AND 16 Appellant contends that dependent Claims 2–5, 8, and 16 are allowable for the same reasons urged for independent Claims 1 and 15. Br. 17. In view of the foregoing discussion, we are not persuaded that the Examiner has erred in rejecting dependent Claims 2–5, 8, and 16. DEPENDENT CLAIMS 6 AND 17 Appellant contends that dependent Claims 6 and 17 are allowable for the same reasons urged for independent Claims 1 and 15. Br. 17–18. In view of the foregoing discussion, we are not persuaded that the Examiner has erred in rejecting dependent Claims 6 and 17. DEPENDENT CLAIM 7 Appellant contends that dependent Claim 7 is allowable for the same reasons urged for independent Claims 1 and 15. Br. 18. In view of the Appeal 2012-005748 Application 11/748,734 8 foregoing discussion, we are not persuaded that the Examiner has erred in rejecting dependent Claim 7. CLAIMS 9–12 Appellant contends that independent Claim 9 contains similar recitations to those discussed above for independent Claims 1 and 15 and that Hinks fails to cure the alleged deficiencies of Jonas and Goodman. Br. 19. Appellant contends that dependent Claims 10–12 are allowable in view of their dependence from independent Claim 9. Br. 20. In view of the foregoing discussion, we are not persuaded that the Examiner has erred in rejecting Claims 9–12. DEPENDENT CLAIM 13 Appellant contends that dependent Claim 13 is allowable for the same reasons urged for independent Claim 9. Br. 20. In view of the foregoing discussion, we are not persuaded that the Examiner has erred in rejecting dependent Claim 13. DEPENDENT CLAIM 14 Appellant contends that dependent Claim 14 is allowable for the same reasons urged for independent Claim 9. Br. 20. In view of the foregoing discussion, we are not persuaded that the Examiner has erred in rejecting dependent Claim 14. DECISION The rejection of Claims 1–17 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) is AFFIRMED. Appeal 2012-005748 Application 11/748,734 9 No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a)(1)(iv). AFFIRMED mls Copy with citationCopy as parenthetical citation