Sean Mccarthy et al.

Patent Trials and Appeals Board

Aug 1, 2019

12533589 - (D) (P.T.A.B. Aug. 1, 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.
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).