Sean Mccarthy et al.Download PDFPatent Trials and Appeals BoardAug 1, 201912533589 - (D) (P.T.A.B. Aug. 1, 2019) Copy Citation 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. 12/533,589 07/31/2009 Sean McCarthy I098 1070.1 (60833) 7866 27975 7590 08/01/2019 ADD&G - 27975 1401 CITRUS CENTER 255 SOUTH ORANGE AVENUE P.O. BOX 3791 ORLANDO, FL 32802-3791 EXAMINER CRAWLEY, TALIA F ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 3687 NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE 08/01/2019 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): creganoa@allendyer.com PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07) UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE ____________ BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD ____________ Ex parte SEAN MCCARTHY, ANDREW FRANCIS ROBBINS, and KEVIN REECE GOODE ________________ Appeal 2018-0064441 Application 12/533,589 Technology Center 3600 _________________ Before JEREMY J. CURCURI, JAMES B. ARPIN, and ADAM J. PYONIN, Administrative Patent Judges. ARPIN, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL Appellants2 appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) the Examiner’s rejection of claims 6, 10, 11, 14, 17, 18, and 21–28, all of the pending claims. Non- 1 In this Decision, we refer to Appellants’ Appeal Brief (“App. Br.,” filed November 22, 2017) and Reply Brief (“Reply Br.,” filed June 5, 2018); the Non-Final Office Action (“Non-Final Act.,” mailed August 25, 2017); the Examiner’s Answer (“Ans.,” mailed April 9, 2018); and the originally-filed Specification (“Spec.,” filed July 31, 2009). Rather than repeat the Examiner’s findings and determinations and Appellants’ contentions in their entirety, we refer to these documents. 2 Appellants assert Carolina Logistics Services, LLC, is the real party-in- interest. App. Br. 1. Appeal 2018-006444 Application 12/533,589 2 Final Act. 3. Claims 1–5, 7–9, 12, 13, 15, 16, 19, and 20 are canceled. Id. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). We reverse. STATEMENT OF THE CASE Appellants’ recited methods and computer-readable media relate “storing and displaying returned goods information (‘RGI’) for multiple retailers having multiple stores selling multiple products supplied by multiple vendors.” Spec., 1:5–8. In particular, the recited methods and computer-readable media recite creating an aggregated database of RGI using an extract-transform-load (“ETL”) process, which extracts records from a plurality of returned-item-transactions (“RIT”) databases, transforms the RGI from each database to a common format, and processes the extracted and transformed RGI in batches to a staging database, before loading it from the staging database to the aggregated database. Id. at 8:19– 9:15, Fig. 3; see, e.g., App. Br. 28–29 (Claims App’x) (Claim 10). As noted above, claims 6, 10, 11, 14, 17, 18, and 21–28 are pending. Claims 10, 14, 22, and 26 are independent. App. Br. 28–35 (Claims App’x.). Claim 14 recites computer-readable media “having stored thereon instructions . . . which, when executed by a processor, cause the processor to” perform the method of claim 10. Id. at 30–31. Similarly, claim 26 recites computer-readable media “having stored thereon instructions . . . which, when executed by a processor, cause the processor to” perform the method of claim 22. Id. at 34–35. Claims 6, 11, and 17 depend directly from claim 10; claims 18 and 21 depend directly from claim 14; and claims 23–25 depend directly from claim 22; and claims 27 and 28 depend directly from claim 26. Id. at 28–35. Appeal 2018-006444 Application 12/533,589 3 Claims 10 and 22, reproduced below with disputed limitations emphasized, are illustrative. 10. A method of processing returned goods information for a plurality of retailers having a plurality of stores selling a plurality of goods purchased from a plurality of vendors, the method comprising: creating a plurality of retailer computer databases, wherein each of the plurality of retailer computer databases includes returned goods information for each of the plurality of retailers; aggregating each of the plurality of retailer computer databases into an aggregated computer database of returned goods information based upon an extract-transform-load process comprising extracting, at each of a plurality of scheduled time periods, the returned goods information from each of the plurality of retailer computer databases, transforming the returned goods information from each of the plurality of retailer computer databases to a common format, processing, the extracted and transformed returned goods information in batches to a staging database, and loading the processed extracted returned good information from the staging database to the aggregated computer database by bulk inserting multiple processed rows from the staging database into the aggregated computer database, the aggregated computer database comprising returned goods information, item master files, and vendor master files from at least two of the plurality of retailer computer databases; associating the returned goods information for each of the plurality of retailers stored in the aggregated computer database with a predefined time period for each of the plurality of retailers and enabling displaying of returned goods information for each of the plurality of retailers for the predefined time period; and permitting access to the associated returned goods information stored in the aggregated computer database by a Appeal 2018-006444 Application 12/533,589 4 corresponding one of the plurality of retailers for the displaying of the returned good information. Id. at 28–29 (emphasis added). 22. A method of processing returned goods information for a plurality of retailers having a plurality of stores selling a plurality of goods purchased from a plurality of vendors, the method comprising: creating a plurality of retailer computer databases, wherein each of the plurality of retailer computer databases includes returned goods information for each of the plurality of retailers; aggregating each of the plurality of retailer computer databases into an aggregated computer database of returned goods information based upon an extract-transform-load process comprising extracting, at each of a plurality of scheduled time periods, the returned goods information from each of the plurality of retailer computer databases, transforming the returned goods information from each of the plurality of retailer computer databases to a common format, processing, the extracted and transformed returned goods information in batches to a staging database, and loading the processed extracted returned good information from the staging database to the aggregated computer database by inserting single rows and columns of returned goods information into the aggregated computer database, the aggregated computer database comprising returned goods information, item master files, and vendor master files from at least two of the plurality of retailer computer databases; associating the returned goods information for each of the plurality of retailers stored in the aggregated computer database with a predefined time period for each of the plurality of retailers and enabling displaying of returned goods information for each of the plurality of retailers for the predefined time period; and permitting access to the associated returned goods information stored in the aggregated computer database by a Appeal 2018-006444 Application 12/533,589 5 corresponding one of the plurality of retailers for the displaying of the returned good information. Id. at 32–33 (emphasis added). Thus, these claimed methods differ in how they insert the returned goods information from the staging database into the aggregated computer database. REFERENCES AND REJECTIONS The Examiner relies upon the following references: Name3 Number Issued/Publ’d Filed Hammond US 7,455,226 B1 Nov. 25, 2008 Nov. 1, 2005 Chitnis US 2009/0112927 A1 Apr. 30, 2009 Oct. 26, 2007 The Examiner rejects claims 6, 10, 11, 14, 17, 18, and 21–28 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as rendered obvious over the combined teachings of Hammond and Chitnis. Non-Final Act. 4–12. We review the appealed rejection for error based upon the issues identified by Appellants, and in light of the arguments and evidence produced thereon.4 Ex parte Frye, 94 USPQ2d 1072, 1075 (BPAI 2010) (precedential). Arguments not made are waived. See 37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(1)(iv). We address the rejection below. 3 All reference citations are to the first named inventor only. 4 Appellants contest the rejection of independent claims 10 and 14 and of independent claims 22 and 26, together, and do not contest the rejection of the dependent claims separately from their base claims. App. Br. 15–26; Reply Br. 2–9. Appeal 2018-006444 Application 12/533,589 6 ANALYSIS 1. Independent Claims 10, 14, 22, and 26 Claims 10, 14, 22, and 26 stand rejected as rendered obvious over the combined teachings of Hammond and Chitnis. Non-Final Act. 4–12. Appellants raise the following dispositive issues: (1) whether Chitnis supplies the limitations that the Examiner acknowledges are missing from Hammond and (2) whether the Examiner expresses a reason for a person of ordinary skill in the art to combine the teachings of Hammond and Chitnis to achieve the methods and computer-readable media recited in the pending claims. App. Br. 14–15; Reply Br. 2. For the reasons given below, we do not sustain this rejection. The Examiner asserts that Hammond teaches the majority of the limitations of claims 10 and 26, but acknowledges that: Hammond et al[.] does not appear to explicitly disclose the aggregation of returned goods information based upon an extract-transform-load process, further comprising: Transforming the returned goods information from each of the plurality of retailer computer databases to a common format; and Processing, the extracted and transformed returned goods information in batches to a staging database, and loading the processed extracted returned good information from the staging database to the aggregated computer database by bulk inserting multiple processed rows from the staging database into the aggregated computer database. Non-Final Act. 6 (emphasis added); see id. at 10 (making the identical assertion with respect to independent claim 22). The Examiner asserts, however, that these limitations are taught by Chitnis (id. at 6–7 (citing Chitnis ¶¶ 26, 36, Figs. 2, 5)) and that a person of ordinary skill in the art “would have recognized that the results of the combination were predictable, Appeal 2018-006444 Application 12/533,589 7 therefore the combination has been deemed obvious” (id. at 7–8) (emphasis omitted).5 See id. at 10–12 (making the identical assertion with respect to independent claim 22). Appellants contend that the Examiner fails to address the different limitations recited in claims 10 and 14 and those recited in claims 22 and 26. App. Br. 22, 25–26; Reply Br. 8–9. Addressing claims 10 and 26, the Examiner asserts that Chitnis teaches “[p]rocessing, the extracted and transformed returned goods information in batches to a staging database, and loading the processed extracted returned good information from the staging database to the aggregated computer database by bulk inserting multiple processed rows from the staging database into the aggregated computer database.” Non-Final Act. 7 (emphasis added) (citing Chitnis ¶ 36, Fig. 5). Nevertheless, as noted above, independent claims 10 and 14 recite that data is loaded from the staging database “by bulk inserting multiple processed rows from the staging database into the aggregated computer database.” App. Br. 29, 31 (Claims App’x). Independent claims 22 and 26 recite that data is loaded from the staging database “by inserting single rows and columns of returned goods information into the aggregated computer database.” Id. at 33, 35. Nowhere in the Non-Final Office Action does the Examiner address this difference in claim language. See Non-Final Act. 11 (alleging that Chitnis teaches “loading the processed extracted returned good information . . . by bulk inserting multiple processed rows from the staging 5 The Examiner does not discuss claim 14 in detail. Instead, the Examiner simply asserts, “[r]egarding claim 14, the language of independent claim 14 is similar to that recited by independent claim 10, and therefore, 14 is rejected for the same reasoning as was applied to claim 10, supra.” Non- Final Act. 8. Appeal 2018-006444 Application 12/533,589 8 database into the aggregated computer database” with respect to claim 22 (emphasis added)). Further, although Chitnis’s Paragraph 36 mentions what the “rows” of transformed data comprise, the cited paragraph does not appear to describe how the “rows” are inserted into an aggregated database. Chitnis ¶ 36 (“Each row of the resulting transformed data will then correspond to a unique combination of values for the key fields.”). In the Answer, “[t]he examiner submits that the bulk insertion and individual insertion of data from a plurality of databased into an aggregated database is fully disclosed and supported by the applied prior art reference Chitnis, and the combination of the aforementioned prior art reference effectively anticipates the use of said data in a merchandise return scenario.” Ans. 10 (emphasis added). This conclusory assertion, however, does not cite to any portions of the references, and is insufficient to demonstrate that Chitnis teaches the different “insertion” limitations of the various independent claims. Reply Br. 8. The Examiner cannot establish a prima facie case of obviousness without addressing the limitations recited in the pending claims and showing where those limitations are taught or suggested by the applied references. Because the Examiner only quotes the “insertion” limitation appearing in claims 10 and 14 and does not clearly show where Chitnis teaches this limitation or the “insertion” limitation of claims 22 and 26, the Examiner fails to establish a prima facie case of obviousness with respect to claims 10, 14, 22, or 26.6 6 Because the Examiner fails to address each limitation of the independent claims, we do not reach Appellants’ contention that the Examiner improperly changed the reason to combine the teachings of Hammond and Chitnis from the “predictability” of the result of their combination (Non- Final Act. 7–8) to it being “obvious to try” the combination (Ans. 9). If Appeal 2018-006444 Application 12/533,589 9 Consequently, we are persuaded that the Examiner erred in determining that the combined teachings of Hammond and Chitnis render independent claims 10, 14, 22, and 26 obvious, and we do not sustain their rejection. 2. Dependent Claims 6, 11, 17, 18, 21, 23–25, 27, and 28 The Examiner relies on the combined teachings of Hammond and Chitnis to reject the dependent claims. Non-Final Act. 8–9, 12. Thus, on this record, we do not sustain the Examiner’s obviousness rejection of the dependent claims for the reasons given above with respect to their base claims. See App. Br. 24, 26; Reply Br. 7, 9. CONCLUSION (1) The Examiner erred in rejecting claims 6, 10, 11, 14, 17, 18, and 21–28 as rendered obvious over the combined teachings of Hammond and Chitnis. (2) Thus, claims 6, 10, 11, 14, 17, 18, and 21–28 are not unpatentable on the record before us. DECISION We reverse the Examiner’s rejections of claims 6, 10, 11, 14, 17, 18, and 21–28. REVERSED prosecution resumes, we remind the Examiner and Appellants that, with respect to an “obvious to try” rationale, “[w]hen there is a design need or market pressure to solve a problem and there are a finite number of identified, predictable solutions, a person of ordinary skill [in the art] has good reason to pursue the known options within his or her technical grasp.” KSR Int’l. Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 421 (2007). Copy with citationCopy as parenthetical citation