Ex Parte Sodan et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Feb 3, 2014

11595163 (P.T.A.B. Feb. 3, 2014)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
____________

BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
____________

Ex parte UWE SODAN, DAVID GINSBERG, KENNETH OUIMET, and
RALF RATH
___________

Appeal 2011-012287
Application 11/595,163
Technology Center 3600
____________

Before JOSEPH A. FISCHETTI, MEREDITH C. PETRAVICK, and
BART A. GERSTENBLITH, Administrative Patent Judges.

PETRAVICK, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL
Appeal 2011-012287
Application 11/595,163

2
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Uwe Sodan et al. (Appellants) seek our review under 35 U.S.C. § 134
of the final rejection of claims 1-22. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C.
§ 6(b).

SUMMARY OF DECISION
We REVERSE.1

THE INVENTION
This invention is directed to “a visual interface for interactive data
analysis and more specifically to interactive price zone computations using a
visual interface including auxiliary data for the iterative analysis of
commercial or retail data based in part on geographic regional designations.”
Spec. ¶ 03.
Claim 1, reproduced below with markings, is illustrative of the subject
matter on appeal.
1. A method of using a processing device to
create an interactive price zoning display
comprising:
[A] retrieving, by said processing device,
sales data for a plurality of retail locations in a
geographic region, the geographic region
dividable into a plurality of geographic zones;
[B] modeling product pricing and sales

1 Our decision will make references to the Appellants’ Appeal Brief (“App.
Br.,” filed Mar. 22, 2011) and Reply Brief (“Reply Br.,” filed Jul. 26, 2011),
and the Examiner’s Answer (“Ans.,” mailed Jun. 7, 2011).

Appeal 2011-012287
Application 11/595,163

3
volumes at the retail locations in each
geographic zone from the sales data using the
processing device to measure sensitivity to
product price changes;
[C] iteratively regrouping the retail locations
in different geographic zones using the
processing device to calculate an expected
change in profit from each zoning change
subject to a business rule limiting the
regrouping of at least one retail location;
[D] optimizing geographic zoning of the
retail locations and product pricing in the retail
locations using the processing device based on
the regrouping with a highest expected profit
and the modeled product price change
sensitivity.

THE REJECTION
The Examiner relies upon the following as evidence of
unpatentability:
DeLorme US 5,948,040 Sep. 7, 1999
Bradach, Using the Plural Form in the Management of Restaurant
Chains, Administrative Science Quarterly, Vol. 42, No. 2 (Jun. 1997)
[hereinafter, Bradach].

The following rejection is before us for review:
Claims 1-22 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over DeLorme and Bradach.
Appeal 2011-012287
Application 11/595,163

4

ISSUE
The issue is whether one of ordinary skill in the art would have been
led by DeLorme and Bradach to a method which includes claim 1’s
modeling, iteratively regrouping, and optimizing steps, marked B-D above.

FINDINGS OF FACT
We find that the findings of fact, which appear in the analysis below,
are supported by at least a preponderance of the evidence. Ethicon, Inc. v.
Quigg, 849 F.2d 1422, 1427 (Fed. Cir. 1988) (explaining the general
evidentiary standard for proceedings before the Office).

ANALYSIS
We are persuaded by Appellants’ argument that the Examiner erred
in rejecting claims 1-22 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over
DeLorme and Bradach. Appellants argue that one of ordinary skill in the art
would not have been led by DeLorme and Bradach to claim 1’s steps,
marked B-D above, of modeling, iteratively regrouping, and optimizing. See
App. Br. 12-23; Reply Br. 2-6, 8-9. We agree.
The portion of DeLorme relied upon by the Examiner (see Ans. 4-5,
citing col. 7, ll. 35-38) describes a computerized travel planning system
which can optimize a travel plan by allowing a traveler to make refinements
iteratively to a travel route until a satisfactory travel plan is achieved.
DeLorme, col. 7, ll. 35-53. The portions of Bradach relied upon by the
Examiner (see Ans. 5-6, citing pages 276, 278, 288, 291, and 297) describe a
model for the management of a chain restaurant organization that uses both
Appeal 2011-012287
Application 11/595,163

5
company and franchised units. See, e.g., Bradach 276. Also, we do not
agree with the Examiner that Bradach at 287 discloses the claimed
regrouping step as, “switching between the two forms depending on where
they are in the innovation process” because switching forms based on
innovation does not equate with regrouping based on calculating an expected
change in profit from each zoning change. Neither of these references
teaches the modeling, iterative regrouping, or optimizing of steps B-D
above. Neither of these references relate to modeling or optimizing of retail
locations and product pricing based on geographic zoning. Given this, we
disagree with the Examiner (see Ans. 5) that one of ordinary skill in the art
would have found it obvious to modify DeLorme’s travel planning system,
in light of Bradach’s model of a chain restaurant organization, to achieve
steps B-D. Therefore, we find that the Examiner fails to establish a prima
facie showing of obviousness.
Independent claims 8, 14, and 19 recite similar limitations and are
rejected using the same rationale discussed above. Accordingly, the
rejection of claims 1, 8, 14, and 19, and claims 2-7, 9-13, 15-18, and 20-22,
dependent thereon, under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over
DeLorme and Bradach is reversed.

DECISION
The decision of the Examiner to reject claims 1-22 is reversed.

REVERSED

mls