Gavin Doyle et al.

Patent Trials and Appeals Board

Aug 9, 2019

14421698 - (D) (P.T.A.B. Aug. 9, 2019)

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.
14/421,698 02/13/2015 Gavin Doyle EVER04-00002 9693
23990 7590 08/09/2019
DOCKET CLERK
P.O. DRAWER 800889
DALLAS, TX 75380
EXAMINER
RUSHING, MARK S
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2685
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
08/09/2019 ELECTRONIC
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.
Notice of the Office communication was sent electronically on above-indicated "Notification Date" to the
following e-mail address(es):
munckwilson@gmail.com
patents@munckwilson.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
____________________

BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
____________________

Ex parte GAVIN DOYLE and ALAN O’HERLIHY
____________________

Appeal 2018-008940
Application 14/421,6981
Technology Center 2600
____________________

Before ERIC S. FRAHM, JOHNNY A. KUMAR, and
MICHAEL T. CYGAN, Administrative Patent Judges.

CYGAN, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL
STATEMENT OF CASE
Introduction
Appellants appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Examiner’s
Final Rejection of claims 55, 57, 58, 61–70, 72, 73, 76–86, 88, 89, 92–102,
104, 105, and 108–123, which are all of the claims pending in the
application. Final Act. 2.2 We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).

1 According to Appellants, Everseen Limited is the real party in interest. Br.
1.
2 Although the Examiner’s statement of the rejection includes additional
claims (Final Act 2 point 3), the Examiner’s statement of the pending claims
(Final Act. 2, point 1, Id. at 1) correctly states the claims that remain
Appeal 2018-008940
Application 14/421,698

2
We AFFIRM.
Disclosed Invention and Exemplary Claim
The disclosed invention relates to a virtual management system that
acquires data relating to the processing of stock. Abstract. The profitability
of retailers can be adversely affected by factors such as “sweethearting,” in
which a customer pays for a low-value item whilst purchasing a high-value
item, either through collusion with a retail staff member or through misuse
of a self-service terminal. Spec. ¶ 2. Another factor is where the store’s
layout is not conducive to items in certain locations. Id. Appellants claim a
technique for acquiring data in the store and processing it so as to bring
predetermined events to the attention of relevant personnel. Id. ¶ 8.
Independent claim 55 is exemplary of the disclosed invention, and
reads as follows with emphases added to identify the limitations at issue:
55. A virtual management system comprising:
a transceiver configured to control the flow of data to and
from the virtual management system;
a processor configured to:
receive, via the transceiver, at least a portion of stock loss
event data acquired from at least one local data acquisition
device;
maintain details of a management hierarchy organizing
management personnel by level;
process the stock loss event data according to a set of
pre-defined rules for identifying clusters of stock loss events
geographically linked, temporally linked, or linked to one or
more persons, including at least one escalation rule for
escalation of an alert through the management hierarchy;

pending after Appellants’ amendment of August 11, 2017. See also Adv.
Act. 1.
Appeal 2018-008940
Application 14/421,698

3
generate an alert in response to the processing of the
stock loss event data indicating that a specified cluster of stock
loss events has occurred;
transmit the alert to a remote device associated with an
employee, via the transceiver; and
escalate the alert through the management hierarchy by
transmitting the alert, via the transceiver, to a remote device
associated with a member of management personnel at a
selected level of the management hierarchy based on the at least
one escalation rule.
Independent claims 70, 86, and 102 recite limitations commensurate
with the limitations recited in claim 1. Dependent claims 57, 58, 61–69, 72,
73, 76–85, 88, 89, 92–101, 104, 105, and 108–123 each incorporate the
limitations of their respective independent claims. Appellants do not argue
any claims separately from claim 55; accordingly, all of the appealed claims
stand or fall together, and claim 55 is selected as representative. 37 C.F.R.
§ 41.67(vii).
Examiner’s Rejection
The Examiner rejects claims 55, 57, 58, 61–69, 72, 73, 76–85, 88, 89,
92–101, 104, 105, and 108–123 under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
obvious over the combination of Romer et al. (US 2008/0303902 A1;
published Dec. 11, 2008) (hereinafter, “Romer”), Hannah et al. (US
2006/0244588 A1; published Nov. 2, 2006) (hereinafter “Hannah”),
Kaundinya et al. (US 2007/0139212 A1; published June 21, 2007)
(hereinafter “Kaundinya”), and Bapat (US 2007/0203809 A1; published
Aug. 30, 2007).

Appeal 2018-008940
Application 14/421,698

4
ANALYSIS
We have reviewed the Examiner’s rejection (Final Act. 2–11) in light
of Appellants’ contentions that the Examiner has erred (Br. 7–14). Further,
we have reviewed the Examiner’s response to Appellants’ contentions. Ans.
3–6.
With respect to claim 55, Appellants contend that the combination of
applied references does not teach or suggest (1) the escalation of alerts
through a management hierarchy, or (2) the application of processing rules
to stock loss data to identify clusters of stock loss events geographically
linked, temporally linked, or linked to one or more persons and generate
corresponding alerts. Br. 10.
With respect to issue (1), the escalation of alerts through a
management hierarchy, the Examiner finds Romer to teach or suggest this
limitation. Final Act. 3–4. The Examiner states that “the management
hierarchy is the protocol that sends an initial alert once the cash drawer is
opened to monitor the drawer, during that monitoring, if no transaction
occurs, the alert is escalated to include an alarm.” Id. (citing Romer ¶ 48,
Fig. 8) (emphasis omitted). The Examiner equates the protocol for sending
the initial alert, and the escalated alarm, as representing the management
hierarchy. Ans. 5. The Examiner further determines that the alert is sent to
a remote device in order to allow store managers to monitor in real time
alarm events. Final Act. 3 (citing Romer ¶ 38).
The Examiner also relies upon the teachings or suggestions of
Kaundinya. Final Act. 4. The Examiner finds Kaundinya to teach or
suggest alerts to be sent to specific supervisor’s computers, including an
escalation module that applies different rules to different alerts, so that alerts
Appeal 2018-008940
Application 14/421,698

5
are escalated or presented to different supervisor levels of the organization.
Id. (citing Kaundinya ¶¶ 30–31).
Appellants argue that Romer does not mention escalation through a
management hierarchy, and that Romer’s only mention of managerial
functions is “in the context of setting up video processing rules and therefore
also does not disclose escalating an alarm through a management hierarchy.”
Br. 11–12 (citing Romer ¶¶ 48, 50).
We are not persuaded by Appellants’ argument. As determined by the
Examiner, the system of Romer “allows store managers . . . to monitor in
real time.” Romer ¶ 38; Ans. 3. The escalation of the initial alert to the
alarm is via rules that may be set up by retail managers or other corporate
operations personnel, representing the management hierarchy. Ans. 3; see
also Romer ¶ 50. In view of the relied-upon teachings or suggestions of
Romer and Kaundinya, we are not persuaded by Appellants that a system of
escalating alerts through rules defined by retail store managers or corporate
operations personnel, in which the alerts may be sent to a remote device for
users such as managers for the purpose of overseeing store operations, and in
which alerts are escalated or presented to different supervisor levels of the
organization, does not meet the claimed “escalat[ing an] alert through [a]
management hierarchy . . . to a remote device associated with a member of
management personnel at a selected level of the management hierarchy
based on the at least one escalation rule.” Claim 55.
With respect to issue (2), the application of processing rules to stock
loss data to identify clusters of stock loss events geographically linked,
temporally linked, or linked to one or more persons and generate
corresponding alerts, the Examiner relies upon Romer for teaching
Appeal 2018-008940
Application 14/421,698

6
processing rules to identify clusters of events that are temporally linked, and
determines that Romer does not teach that the clusters of events are stock
loss events. Final Act. 4–5.
The Examiner relies upon Bapat for teaching or suggesting
monitoring of a stock loss event for identifying “clusters ([0047] boxes, cans
or packets) of stock loss events geographically linked ([0057] display shelf
20 of Fig 2), temporally linked ([0054] replenishing time) or linked to one or
more persons ([0052], [0053], Fig 5 designated person, e.g. store
supervisor).” Br. 13; Final Act. 5.
Appellants argue that one skilled in the art would not read the claims
so as to equate clusters of boxes, cans, or packets with clusters of stock loss
events. Br. 13. Appellants argue that it is clear from the Specification that
such stock loss events are instances of theft or fraud. Id. (citing Spec. ¶¶ 42,
44). Appellants further argue that a display shelf does not meet the claimed
“geographical region,” which would be understood by one skilled in the art
to be an area such as region serviced by one or more retail stores. Id. (citing
Spec. ¶¶ 6, 44).
We construe the disputed terms “in light of the specification as it
would be interpreted by one of ordinary skill in the art.” In re Am. Acad. Of
Sci. Tech Ctr., 367 F.3d 1359, 1364 (Fed. Cir. 2004). With respect to stock
loss events and a geographical region, the Specification mentions that data is
collected relating to “stocking levels,” and allows for “the interdependence
of sales and store layout to be monitored.” Spec. ¶ 38. Particularly, the
system permits an analysis of “which areas of the store . . . are most
susceptible to stock loss,” such as “a storeroom,” and that “store level
patterns can be established.” Id. ¶¶ 43, 45. Furthermore, the claim recites
Appeal 2018-008940
Application 14/421,698

7
“geographically” as one of a list of alternatives including “temporally” and
“to one or more persons.” Claim 55. We further note that the claimed
“stock loss event data acquired from at least one local data acquisition
device” is described as data that may relate to “stocking levels of shelves,
EPL [(Electronic Price Label)], and/or RFID [(Radio Frequency
Identification)],” as well as video data from areas of the store and “POS
[(Point of Sale)] data relating to transactions,” which are then processed for
correlations. Spec. ¶¶ 13, 38.
We are not persuaded by Appellants that “stock loss” is limited to
instances of theft or fraud, which the Specification discusses merely as
illustrative examples of types of stock loss event data that may be received
by a transceiver and identified as due to theft or fraud subsequent to
processing under the rules. See, e.g., Spec. ¶ 14 (“may comprise a rule
arranged to identify a correlation . . . which corresponds to an indication of a
fraudulent transaction”). Nor are we persuaded by Appellants that
“geographically” requires a region at least comprising one or more retail
stores, since the Specification provides examples of clusters of events that
may occur within a single region of a store.
In view of this construction, we are not persuaded of error in the
Examiner’s combination of the teachings of Romer and Bapat to meet the
claimed data representing an event of loss of stock from a geographical area
such as a store shelf. Additionally, the rejection’s reliance on Romer’s
teaching or suggestion of events that are temporally linked, and on Bapat’s
teaching or suggestion of stock loss events that may be related to a person,
meet the alternative “temporally” and “to one or more person” limitations of
Appeal 2018-008940
Application 14/421,698

8
claim 55. Accordingly, we do not find error in the Examiner’s conclusion
that claim 55 is obvious over the applied combination of references.
For the abovementioned reasons, we are not persuaded of error in the
Examiner’s rejection of claim 55. Since all other claims on appeal stand or
fall with claim 55, Appellants have not persuasively shown error in the
Examiner’s rejections of these claims.

CONCLUSIONS
We conclude that Appellants have not shown that the Examiner has
erred in rejecting claim 55, and claims 57, 58, 61–70, 72, 73, 76–86, 88, 89,
92–102, 104, 105, and 108–123 grouped therewith, under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as
being obvious over the combination of Romer, Hannah, Kaundinya, and
Bapat.

DECISION
We affirm the Examiner’s rejections of claims 55, 57, 58, 61–70, 72,
73, 76–86, 88, 89, 92–102, 104, 105, and 108–123 under pre-AIA
35 U.S.C. § 103(a).
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