Veeva Systems Inc.

Patent Trials and Appeals Board

Apr 26, 2021

2020004731 (P.T.A.B. Apr. 26, 2021)

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.
15/885,656 01/31/2018 Arno Sosna V0054 8964
125563 7590 04/26/2021
Veeva Systems Inc.
4280 Hacienda Drive
Pleasanton, CA 94588
EXAMINER
CHAMPAGNE, LUNA
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
3627
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
04/26/2021 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):
USPTO@dockettrak.com
donald.wilson@veeva.com
lin.deng@veeva.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte ARNO SOSNA
Appeal 2020-004731
Application 15/885,656
Technology Center 3600
Before ST. JOHN COURTENAY III, LARRY J. HUME, and
JENNIFER L. McKEOWN, Administrative Patent Judges.
HUME, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
Pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 134(a), Appellant1 appeals from the
Examiner’s decision rejecting claims 1–20, which are all claims pending in
the application. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We AFFIRM.

1 We use the term “Appellant” to refer to “applicant” as defined in 37 C.F.R.
§ 1.42. Appellant identifies the real party in interest as VEEVA SYSTEMS
INC. Appeal Br. 3.
Appeal 2020-004731
Application 15/885,656

2
STATEMENT OF THE CASE2
The claims are directed to a system and method for managing visual
product placement. See Spec. (Title). In particular, Appellant’s disclosed
embodiments and claimed invention relate to retail product placement.
Spec. ¶ 1.
Exemplary Claim
Claim 1, reproduced below, is representative of the subject matter on
Appeal:
1. A computer-implemented method for managing
visual product placement, the method comprising:
obtaining a real-time image of a place with a camera in a
local computing device;
detecting a shelf in the real-time image of the place by a
visual product placement controller with a first machine
learning model stored in the local computing device;
dividing an image of the shelf into a plurality of small
boxes with the visual product placement controller in the local
computing device, wherein each of the small boxes corresponds
to an image of a product on the shelf;
detecting an image of a first target product in the
plurality of small boxes by the visual product placement
controller with a second machine learning model stored in the
local computing device; and
comparing actual product placement information of the
first target product with a set of contractual planogram

2 Our decision relies upon Appellant’s Appeal Brief (“Appeal Br.,” filed
Mar. 4, 2020); Reply Brief (“Reply Br.,” filed June 8, 2020); Examiner’s
Answer (“Ans.,” mailed Apr. 8, 2020); Final Office Action (“Final Act.,”
mailed June 4, 2019); and the original Specification (“Spec.,” filed
Jan. 31, 2018).
Appeal 2020-004731
Application 15/885,656

3
requirements for displaying the first target product on the shelf
with the visual product placement controller in the local
computing device.
REFERENCES
The prior art relied upon by the Examiner as evidence is:
Name Reference Date
Barrett et al. (“Barrett”) US 2017/0161105 A1 June 8, 2017
Skaff et al. (“Skaff”) US 2017/0286901 A1 Oct. 5, 2017
Teig et al. (“Teig”) US 2018/0025268 A1 Jan. 25, 2018
Opalach et al. (“Opalach”) WO 2009/027836 A2 Mar.5, 2009
Hemed et al. (“Hemed”) WO 2018/002709 A2 Jan. 4, 2018
REJECTIONS
R1. Claims 1–8, 10–14, and 17–20 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103 as being unpatentable over the combination of Opalach, Skaff,
Hemed, and Teig. Final Act. 2.
R2. Claims 9, 15, and 16 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as
being unpatentable over the combination of Opalach, Skaff, Hemed, and
Teig in further view of Official Notice as evidenced by Barrett. Final Act. 9.
CLAIM GROUPING
Based on Appellant’s arguments (Appeal Br. 11–14) and our
discretion under 37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(1)(iv), we decide the appeal of
obviousness Rejection R1 of claims 1–8, 10–14, and 17–20 on the basis of
representative claim 1.
Appeal 2020-004731
Application 15/885,656

4
Remaining claims 9, 15, and 16 in Rejection R2, not argued
separately, stand or fall with the respective independent claim from which
they depend.3
ISSUES AND ANALYSIS
In reaching this decision, we consider all evidence presented and all
arguments actually made by Appellant. To the extent Appellant has not
advanced separate, substantive arguments for particular claims, or other
issues, such arguments are waived. 37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(1)(iv).
We disagree with Appellant’s arguments with respect to claims 1–20
and, unless otherwise noted, we incorporate by reference herein and adopt as
our own: (1) the findings and reasons set forth by the Examiner in the action
from which this appeal is taken, and (2) the reasons and rebuttals set forth in
the Examiner’s Answer in response to Appellant’s arguments.4 We
highlight and address specific findings and arguments regarding claim 1 for
emphasis as follows.

3 “Notwithstanding any other provision of this paragraph, the failure of
appellant to separately argue claims which appellant has grouped together
shall constitute a waiver of any argument that the Board must consider the
patentability of any grouped claim separately.” 37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(1)(iv).
In addition, when Appellant does not separately argue the patentability of
dependent claims, the claims stand or fall with the claims from which they
depend. In re King, 801 F.2d 1324, 1325 (Fed. Cir. 1986).
4 See Icon Health and Fitness, Inc. v. Strava, Inc., 849 F.3d 1034, 1042 (Fed.
Cir. 2017) (“As an initial matter, the PTAB was authorized to incorporate
the Examiner’s findings.”); see also In re Brana, 51 F.3d 1560, 1564 n.13
(Fed. Cir. 1995) (upholding the PTAB’s findings, although it “did not
expressly make any independent factual determinations or legal
conclusions,” because it had expressly adopted the examiner’s findings).
Appeal 2020-004731
Application 15/885,656

5
1. § 103 Rejection R1 of Claims1–8, 10–14, and 17–20
Issue 1
Appellant argues (Appeal Br. 11–14; Reply Br. 3–7) the Examiner’s
rejection of claim 1 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being obvious over the
combination of Opalach, Skaff, Hemed, and Teig is in error. These
contentions present us with the following issues:
Did the Examiner err in finding the cited prior art combination teaches
or suggests the method of claim 1 because, as argued by Appellant, (a) Skaff
is not a proper reference in a § 103 rejection because it allegedly teaches
away from the claimed invention; and (b) there is no suggestion or
motivation to combine Teig with Opalach, Hemed, and Skaff to reconstruct
the claimed invention in the manner suggested by the Examiner?
Principles of Law
“[O]ne cannot show non-obviousness by attacking references
individually where . . . the rejections are based on combinations of
references.” In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 426 (CCPA 1981) (citation
omitted). “The test for obviousness is not whether the features of a
secondary reference may be bodily incorporated into the structure of the
primary reference . . . . Rather, the test is what the combined teachings of
those references would have suggested to those of ordinary skill in the art.”
Id. at 425.
In KSR, the Court stated, “[t]he combination of familiar elements
according to known methods is likely to be obvious when it does no more
than yield predictable results.” KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398,
416 (2007).
Appeal 2020-004731
Application 15/885,656

6
When a work is available in one field of endeavor, design
incentives and other market forces can prompt variations of it,
either in the same field or a different one. If a person of
ordinary skill can implement a predictable variation, § 103
likely bars its patentability. For the same reason, if a technique
has been used to improve one device, and a person of ordinary
skill in the art would recognize that it would improve similar
devices in the same way, using the technique is obvious unless
its actual application is beyond his or her skill . . . . [A] court
must ask whether the improvement is more than the predictable
use of prior art elements according to their established
functions.
Id. at 417.
Further, the relevant inquiry is whether the Examiner has set forth
“some articulated reasoning with some rational underpinning to support the
legal conclusion of obviousness.” In re Kahn, 441 F.3d 977, 988 (Fed.
Cir. 2006) (cited with approval in KSR, 550 U.S. at 418).
“A reference may be said to teach away when a person of ordinary
skill, upon reading the reference, would be discouraged from following the
path set out in the reference, or would be led in a direction divergent from
the path that was taken by the applicant.” Ricoh Co., Ltd. v. Quanta
Computer, Inc., 550 F.3d 1325, 1332 (Fed. Cir. 2008) (citations omitted). A
reference does not teach away if it merely expresses a general preference for
an alternative invention from amongst options available to the ordinarily
skilled artisan, and the reference does not discredit or discourage
investigation into the invention claimed. In re Fulton, 391 F.3d 1195, 1201
(Fed. Cir. 2004).
Appeal 2020-004731
Application 15/885,656

7
Analysis
(a) Skaff is a Proper Reference in a § 103 Rejection
Appellant contends “Skaff is directed to a system for building a
product library without requiring a planogram (Skaff, Abstract). Skaff
teaches away from the claimed invention.” Appeal Br. 11. Appellant
further argues, “[a]lthough the features do not mention planogram explicitly,
a skilled artisan would appreciate that ‘the small boxes corresponding to an
image of a product on the shelf’ in the recited features are used for
planogram.” Id. Appellant further contends that Skaff “expressly criticizes,
discredits and discourages the use of planogram . . . at least in” paragraphs 4,
8, 17, and 19, the Abstract, and claims 10 and 22. Appeal Br. 11–12.
We disagree with Appellant’s characterization that Skaff discredits the
use of a planogram, as found by the Examiner. We disagree because, as the
Examiner explains:
[T]he fact that Skaff teaches of segmenting images of
product bounding boxes using a relogram [sic] as input does not
mean that Skaff teaches against using a planogram or that its
way of segmenting images cannot be applied to a system with a
planogram.
In fact, Skaff et al. teach “A segmented image can
include multiple product bounding boxes. . . . Products within
product bounding boxes can be manually identified, identified
using crowd source or paid reviewer image identification
systems, identified with or without the aid of an initial
planogram,[”] (see e.g.[,] paragraph 0038).
In the current field, both a relogram [sic] and a
planogram represent the layout of goods/products in a retail
environment. The only difference is the relogram [sic]
represents real time information and the planogram represents
the planned information (data as it should be). The images of
Appeal 2020-004731
Application 15/885,656

8
products on the shelves whether from the relogram [sic] or the
planogram can be used and parsed/divided by the same tool for
further analysis. As taught in paragraph 0008, Skaff combines
data from the planogram to aid in realogram construction and
proceeds to segment the images (see e.g.[,] paragraph 0008).
Again, the fact that the Skaff reference uses a relogram
[sic] instead of a planogram does not impact the system that
segments or divides the images.
Ans. 3–4.
We agree with the Examiner’s finding that Skaff is a proper reference
under 35 U.S.C. § 103 because, as disclosed in paragraph 38 of Skaff,
“[p]roducts within product bounding boxes can be manually identified,
identified using crowd source or paid reviewer image identification systems,
identified with or without the aid of an initial planogram.” Skaff ¶ 38
(emphasis added). Although it may be true that certain embodiments of
Skaff do not rely upon use of a planogram, other portions of Skaff teach
reliance upon a planogram to aid in realogram construction, and thus do not
disparage the use of planograms. For example, “[r]ealograms can be locally
stored with a data storage module connected to the processing module. A
communication module can be connected to the processing module to
transfer realogram data to remote locations, including store servers or other
supported camera systems, and additionally receive inventory information
including planograms to aid in realogram construction.” Skaff ¶ 8
(emphasis added).5

5 “All of the disclosures in a reference must be evaluated for what they fairly
teach one of ordinary skill in the art.” In re Boe, 355 F.2d 961, 965 (CCPA
1966)). “‘The use of patents as references is not limited to what the
patentees describe as their own inventions or to the problems with which
Appeal 2020-004731
Application 15/885,656

9
Accordingly, in agreement with the Examiner, we determine that
Skaff does not teach away from the reference combination. See Fulton, 391
F.3d at 1201.
(b) Motivation to Combine Teig with Opalach, Hemed, and Skaff is Proper
Appellant’s argument is essentially that Teig is non-analogous art.
Appellant contends, “Teig is directed to systems which implement machine
learning based on neural networks that draw low power for use in smart
phones. Teig is irrelevant to visual product management or planogram, is
not a proper §[ ]103 reference of the claimed invention, and there is no
suggestion or motivation to combine Teig with Opalach, Hemed[ ], and
Skaff to reconstruct the claimed invention.” Appeal Br. 14.
The Examiner summarizes findings related to Teig by reiterating:
In short, [Teig] et al. teach at least two operating machine
learning models residing in a local computing device and
performing visual object recognition in images and live camera
feeds, as claimed by Appellant. [Teig’s] teaching can be applied
to any type of object recognition analysis via machine learning,
including the systems of OPALACH which performs analysis
on product images obtained from shelves but lacks the teaching
of placing both machine learning models in a local computing
device.
Ans. 5.

they are concerned. They are part of the literature of the art, relevant for all
they contain.’” In re Heck, 699 F.2d 1331, 1333 (Fed. Cir. 1983) (quoting
In re Lemelson, 397 F.2d 1006, 1009 (CCPA 1968)). In re Fritch, 972 F.2d
1260, 1264 (Fed. Cir. 1992) (A reference is good for all it teaches to one of
ordinary skill in the art); In re Fracalossi, 681 F.2d 792, 794 n.1
(CCPA1982); In re Lamberti, 545 F.2d 747, 750 (CCPA 1976) (References
must be considered in their entirety and not limited to its specific examples).
Appeal 2020-004731
Application 15/885,656

10
Whether a reference in the prior art is “analogous” is a fact question.
In re Clay, 966 F.2d 656, 658 (Fed. Cir. 1992) (citing Panduit Corp. v.
Dennison Mfg., 810 F.2d 1561, 1568 n.9 (Fed. Cir. 1987), cert. denied, 481
U.S. 1052 (1987)). Two criteria have evolved for determining whether prior
art is analogous: (1) whether the art is from the same field of endeavor,
regardless of the problem addressed, and (2) if the reference is not within the
field of the inventor’s endeavor, whether the reference still is reasonably
pertinent to the particular problem with which the inventor is involved. Id.
(citing In re Deminski, 796 F.2d 436, 442 (Fed. Cir. 1986); In re Wood, 599
F.2d 1032, 1036 (CCPA 1979)).
A reference is reasonably pertinent if, even though it may be in
a different field from that of the inventor’s endeavor, it is one
which, because of the matter with which it deals, logically
would have commended itself to an inventor’s attention in
considering his problem. Thus, the purposes of both the
invention and the prior art are important in determining whether
the reference is reasonably pertinent to the problem the
invention attempts to solve. If a reference disclosure has the
same purpose as the claimed invention, the reference relates to
the same problem, and that fact supports use of that reference in
an obviousness rejection.
In re Clay, 966 F.2d at 659.
In this case, we find that, although Teig is not in the same field of
endeavor as the claimed invention, in agreement with the Examiner, we
further find that Teig’s solution is reasonably pertinent to the problem with
which the inventor is involved. As determined by the Examiner, “applying
the teaching of TEIG allows the processing elements to work in unison (use
of machine learning models residing in one local computing device to detect
Appeal 2020-004731
Application 15/885,656

11
images on shelves) to solve a specific problem (comparing images to
determine fulfillment of contractual agreement).” Ans. 5.
Based upon the findings above, on this record, we are not persuaded
of error in the Examiner’s reliance on the cited prior art combination to teach
or suggest the disputed limitation of claim 1, nor do we find error in the
Examiner’s resulting legal conclusion of obviousness. Therefore, we sustain
the Examiner’s obviousness rejection of independent claim 1, and grouped
claims 2–8, 10–14, and 17–20, which fall therewith. See Claim Grouping,
supra.
2. Rejection R2 of Claims 9, 15, and 16
In view of the lack of any substantive or separate arguments directed
to obviousness Rejection R2 of claims 9, 15, and 16 under § 103, we sustain
the Examiner’s rejection of these claims. Arguments not made are waived.6
REPLY BRIEF
To the extent Appellant may advance new arguments in the Reply
Brief (Reply Br. 3–8) not in response to a shift in the Examiner’s position in
the Answer, arguments raised in a Reply Brief that were not raised in the
Appeal Brief or are not responsive to arguments raised in the Examiner’s
Answer will not be considered except for good cause (see 37 C.F.R.
§ 41.41(b)(2)), which Appellant has not shown.

6 Appellant merely argues, “[e]ven assuming that the Official Notice is not
improper, Barrett does not supply any deficiency of Opalach, Skaff, Hemed
Nir or Teig. Accordingly, Appellant[] respectfully submit[s] that claims 9,
15[,] and 16 are patentable for this additional reason.” Appeal Br. 14.
Appeal 2020-004731
Application 15/885,656

12
CONCLUSION
Appellant has not persuasively argued that the Examiner erred with
respect to obviousness Rejections R1 and R2 of claims 1–20 under 35
U.S.C. § 103 over the cited prior art combinations of record, and we sustain
the rejections.
DECISION SUMMARY
Claim(s)
Rejected
35 U.S.C.
§
Reference(s)/Basis Affirmed Reversed
1–8, 10–14,
17–20
103 Opalach, Skaff,
Hemed, Teig
1–8, 10–14,
17–20

9, 15, 16 103 Opalach, Skaff,
Hemed, and Teig,
Official Notice
(evidenced by
Barrett)
9, 15, 16
Overall
Outcome
1–20
FINALITY AND RESPONSE
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). See 37
C.F.R. § 41.50(f).
AFFIRMED