Ex Parte Stout

Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences

May 30, 2003

09100934 (B.P.A.I. May. 30, 2003)

1
The opinion in support of the decision being entered today was
not written for publication and is not binding precedent of the
Board.
Paper No. 48
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
__________
BEFORE THE BOARD OF PATENT APPEALS
AND INTERFERENCES
__________
Ex parte WESLEY STOUT III
__________
Appeal No. 2003-1046
Application 09/100,934
___________
ON BRIEF
___________
Before FLEMING, DIXON, and BARRY, Administrative Patent Judges.
FLEMING, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
This is a decision on appeal from the final rejection of
claims 5 and 6, all the claims pending in the instant
application. Claims 1 through 4 have been canceled.
Invention
The invention relates to a method for operating a computer
system to accurately perform date operations spanning centuries.
See page 1 of Appellant’s specification. Figure 6 shows a second
Appeal No. 2003-1046
Application 09/100,934
2
embodiment utilizing a 7-digit integer data file 24 which has a
YYYYDDD format. As shown in figure 6, May 2, 1998 shown in the
YYYYDDD format is 2000122. See page 8 of the specification.
Referring to figure 5, the procedure performed when adding days
to a certain date is illustrated. In step S3, the system
determines whether the last three integers in the file is in
excess of 365 or 366 in the event of a leap year. In such case,
the system adds 635 to the number, as shown in step S4. See
page 7 of Appellant’s specification. In the case of subtracting
days from a date, a similar procedure is used. See page 8 of
Appellant’s specification.
Independent claims 5 and 6 present in the application are
reproduced as follows:
5. A series of operational steps to be performed by a
computer, said steps comprising:
storing a plurality of date files within the computer, each
said date file having 7 integers including;
a 4-digit decimal year represented in the first four
integers of said 7 integers;
a 3 digit decimal day represented in the last three integers
of said 7 integers;
in a central processing unit of the computer, adding said 7
integers of one of said plurality of date files to said 7
integers of another said plurality of sate files to generate a
sum; and
Appeal No. 2003-1046
Application 09/100,934
3
adding 635 to said sum when the last three integers of said
sum is in excess of 365 to generate a new date file
representative of a new calendar date.
6. A series of operational steps to be performed by a
computer, said steps comprising:
storing a plurality of date files within the computer, each
said date file having 7 integers including;
a 4-digit decimal year represented in the first four
integers of said 7 integers;
a 3 digit decimal day represented in the last three integers
of said 7 integers;
in a central processing unit of the computer, subtracting
said 7 integers of one of said plurality of date files to said 7
integers of another said plurality of sate files to generate a
sum; and
subtracting 635 to said sum when the last three integers of
said sum is in excess of 365 to generate a new date file
representative of the number of years and days difference between
the date files.
Reference
The reference relied on by the Examiner is as follows:
Adamchick 5,761,668 Jun. 2, 1998
Rejection at Issue
Claims 5 and 6 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being
unpatentable over Adamchick.
Appeal No. 2003-1046
Application 09/100,934
1 Appellant filed an appeal brief on February 20, 2002.
Appellant filed a reply brief on October 30, 2002. The Examiner
mailed an Office Communication on December 31, 2002, stating that
the reply brief has been entered and considered.
4

Throughout the opinion, we will make reference to the
briefs1 and answer for the respective details thereof.
OPINION
With full consideration being given to the subject matter on
appeal, the Examiner’s rejection and the arguments of Appellant
and Examiner for reason stated infra, we reverse the Examiner’s
rejection of claims 5 and 6 under 35 U.S.C. § 103.
In rejecting claims under 35 U.S.C. § 103, the Examiner
bears the initial burden of establishing a prima facie case of
obviousness. In re Oetiker, 977 F.2d 1443, 1445, 24 USPQ2d 1443,
1444 (Fed. Cir. 1992). See also In re Piasecki, 745 F.2d 1468,
1472, 223 USPQ 785, 788 (Fed. Cir. 1984). The Examiner can
satisfy this burden by showing that some objective teaching in
the prior art or knowledge generally available to one of ordinary
skill in the art suggests the claimed subject matter. In re
Fine, 837 F.2d 1071, 1074, 5 USPQ2d 1596, 1598 (Fed. Cir. 1988).
Only if this initial burden is met does the burden of coming
Appeal No. 2003-1046
Application 09/100,934
5
forward with evidence or argument shift to the Appellants.
Oetiker, 977 F.2d at 1445, 24 USPQ2d at 1444. See also Piasecki,
745 F.2d at 1472, 223 USPQ at 788.
An obviousness analysis commences with a review and
consideration of all the pertinent evidence and arguments. “In
reviewing the [E]xaminer’s decision on appeal, the Board must
necessarily weight all of the evidence and arguments.” In re
Oetiker, 977 F.2d at 1445, 24 USPQ2d at 1444. “[T]he Board must
not only assure that the requisite findings are made, based on
evidence of record, but must also explain the reasoning by which
the findings are deemed to support the agency’s conclusion.” In
re Lee, 277 F.3d 1338, 1344, 61 USPQ2d 1430, 1434 (Fed. Cir.
2002). With these principles in mind, we commence review of the
pertinent evidence and arguments of Appellant and Examiner.
The Examiner agrees that Adamchick does not expressly teach
adding or subtracting the integer 635 as recited in Appellant’s
claims 5 and 6 respectively. The Examiner argues that these
limitations are well known in the art. See page 4 of the
Examiner’s answer.
Appellant responds by stating that the Manual of Patent
Appeal No. 2003-1046
Application 09/100,934
6
Examining Procedure MPEP § 2144.03 requires that when the
applicant seasonably challenges the cited well known facts the
burden is shifted to the Examiner to cite a specific reference of
those facts. Appellant has challenged the Examiner’s recitation
of the well known art. Appellant points out that no publication
or reference has been produced to support any aspects of what the
Examiner contends to be well known in the art. See page 10 of
the brief.
Appellant further argues that the limitations are not found
in the prior art publications or any factual examples of modular
arithmetic as relied on by the Examiner. Appellant argues that
the Examiner has taken Appellant’s teachings and found a theory
of mathematic that the Examiner believes explains the Appellant’s
invention. Appellant argues that this is improper.
When determining obviousness, “[t]he factual inquiry whether
to combine references must be thorough and searching.” In re
Lee, 277 F.3d 1338, 1343, 61 USPQ2d 1430, 1433 (Fed. Cir. 2002),
citing McGinley v. Franklin Sports, Inc., 262 F.3d 1339, 1351-52,
60 USPQ2d 1001, 1008 (Fed. Cir. 2001). “It must be based on
objective evidence of record” Id. “Broad conclusory statements
regarding the teaching of multiple references, standing alone,
Appeal No. 2003-1046
Application 09/100,934
7
are not ‘evidence.’” In re Dembiczak, 175 F.3d 994, 999, 50
USPQ2d 1614, 1617. “Mere denials and conclusory statements,
however, are not sufficient to establish a genuine issue of
material fact.” Dembiczak, 175 F.3d at 999, 50 USPQ2d at 1617,
citing McElmurry v. Arkansas Power & Light Co., 995 F.2d 1576,
1578, 27 USPQ2d 1129, 1131 (Fed. Cir. 1993).
We fail to find that the Examiner has failed to provide
findings that support the Examiner’s conclusion of obviousness.
The Examiner is charged with the burden of providing objective
evidence for the record. Broad conclusory statements regarding
that Appellant’s claimed limitation are obvious without proper
findings in the prior art to show that these limitations are
known, fail to meet this burden.
Appeal No. 2003-1046
Application 09/100,934
8
In view of the foregoing, we have not sustained the
Examiner’s rejection of claims 5 and 6 under 35 U.S.C. § 103.
REVERSED
MICHAEL R. FLEMING )
Administrative Patent Judge )
)
)
) BOARD OF PATENT
JOSEPH L. DIXON )
Administrative Patent Judge ) APPEALS AND
)
) INTERFERENCES
)
LANCE LEONARD BARRY )
Administrative Patent Judge )
MRF:pgg
Appeal No. 2003-1046
Application 09/100,934
9
Michael D. Beck
Maginot, Moore & Bowman
Bank One Center/Tower
111 Monument Circle, Suite 3000
Indianapolis, IN 46204-5115