Ex Parte Sharma et alDownload PDFPatent Trial and Appeal BoardNov 26, 201311778521 (P.T.A.B. Nov. 26, 2013) Copy Citation UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE ____________________ BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD ____________________ Ex parte PARIT K. SHARMA and MICHAEL A. DENOMME ____________________ Appeal 2011-005946 Application 11/778,521 Technology Center 2100 ____________________ Before JOSEPH F. RUGGIERO, JEFFREY S. SMITH, and IRVIN E. BRANCH, Administrative Patent Judges. BRANCH, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL Appeal 2011-005946 Application 11/778,521 2 STATEMENT OF CASE Appellants appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Examiner’s Final Rejection of claims 1–30, all pending claims. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). We affirm. Illustrative Claim Appellants’ disclosure relates to quality assurance data capture, including tracking defects in items from various parts of a manufacturing process and reporting in real time and historical perspectives. Spec. ¶ 22 Claim 1, reproduced below with the disputed limitations italicized, is illustrative of the claimed subject matter: 1. A quality control system for a manufacturing process, the system comprising: a data management system configured to receive data regarding an item from a plurality of inspection stations, the data management system comprising: a processor and a memory coupled to the processor, wherein the memory stores a data manager application that, when executed, is operable to generate responses to queries regarding the item by using a data organization comprising: a first data structure for capturing identification data regarding the item being manufactured and inspections for the item; a second data structure for capturing data regarding defects in the components of the item; a third data structure for capturing data regarding departmental relationships for the components of the item; and a fourth data structure linked to the first, second, and third data structures for enabling the inspection stations to perform queries regarding captured identification data regarding the item, Appeal 2011-005946 Application 11/778,521 3 captured inspection data for the item, captured defect data for the components of the item, and captured departmental relationship data for the components containing the defects. Rejections The Examiner made the following rejections: Claims 1–18 and 29 under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) as anticipated by Fujiwara (US 6,801,822 B1) (Ans. 3–9); Claims 19–28 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Fujiwara and Tischler (US 5,077,674) (Ans. 9–12); and Claim 30 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Fujiwara and Kratschmer (US 2007/0233414 A1) (Ans. 12–15). Issues Appellants’ arguments raise the following issues: 1) Whether Fujiwara describes “a data management system configured to receive data regarding an item from a plurality of inspection stations” and “a fourth data structure linked to the first, second, and third data structures for enabling the inspection stations to perform queries” as recited in claim 1; and 2) Whether the Examiner erred in finding that Fujiwara and Tischler teach or suggest “predetermined rules to prevent improper entry of data captured in the first, second, and third data structures” as recited in claim 19. Appeal 2011-005946 Application 11/778,521 4 ANALYSIS We have reviewed the Examiner’s rejections in light of Appellants’ arguments in the Appeal Brief (“App. Br.” filed Sep. 28, 2010) and Reply Brief (“Reply Br.” filed Feb. 09, 2011). We refer to the Briefs and the Answer (“Ans.” mailed Dec. 10, 2010) for the respective positions of Appellants and the Examiner. We disagree with Appellants’ arguments (App. Br. 15–20; Reply Br. 4–9) that the Examiner has erred. We adopt the Examiner’s findings and conclusions (Ans. 3–19). We highlight the following for emphasis. 35 U.S.C. § 102 Rejection of Claim 1 Over Fujiwara Appellants argue that the Examiner erred in rejecting claim 1, contending that Fujiwara does not describe linked data structures (App. Br. 15–17; Reply Br. 4–7) and stating that “Fujiwara’s tables appear to be independent” (App. Br. 17). Appellants argue for a construction of the term “linked” based on Appellants’ Specification (¶¶ 49, 52, and 55) that requires data structures to be linked by keys. Reply Br. 4–6. Appellants reject the Examiner’s construction of linked as including linked by “storing input data in tables in the same database, displaying data on a physical screen, and retrieving data,” which the Examiner finds Fujiwara describes. Id. at 5 (referring to Ans. 15–16 and the Examiner’s citation of Fujiwara, col. 20, ll. 46-59). Appellants do not dispute the Examiner’s finding as to what Fujiwara describes, but instead base the argument on the construction of the term “linked.” We are not persuaded that Appellants’ proposed narrow construction of “linked” is required. Appellants’ use of “link” in the context of data Appeal 2011-005946 Application 11/778,521 5 tables (Spec. ¶ 49) does not require a construction that limits the term to the use of keys. Appellants’ usage does not limit the term such that, for example, data appearing in the same database is not linked in accordance with the Examiner’s interpretation and Fujiwara’s description. We are therefore not persuaded that the Examiner’s interpretation is unreasonably broad in view of Appellant’s Specification. Appellants also argue that the Examiner erred in rejecting claim 1 because Fujiwara does not describe inspection stations that both provide data to the data management system and perform queries on previously-captured data. App. Br. 18; Reply Br. 6–7. Appellants argue that Fujiwara explicitly teaches distinct clients for inputting data (clients 201–208, Fig. 1) and distinct clients for retrieving data (clients 501–503, Fig. 1). Reply Br. 6. We are not persuaded of error. We agree with the Examiner that Appellants’ argument is not commensurate with the claim scope. Ans. 16. We also agree with the Examiner that both of Fujiwara’s client groups (201– 208 and 501–503) include a “communication section,” each of which “connects to a network and exchanges data communications with the server 300 and other clients via this network.” Fujiwara, col. 9, ll. 60–62, col. 10, ll. 9–11, col. 11, ll. 37–38, 52–54. This meets the claimed “data management system configured to receive data regarding an item from a plurality of inspection stations” and the “fourth data structure . . . enabling the inspection stations to perform queries.” Accordingly, because we find that Fujiwara describes “a data management system configured to receive data regarding an item from a plurality of inspection stations” and “a fourth data structure linked to the first, second, and third data structures for enabling the inspection stations to Appeal 2011-005946 Application 11/778,521 6 perform queries,” we sustain the Examiner’s rejection of claim 1. We also sustain the Examiner’s rejection of claim 29, which Appellants argue based on arguments presented for claim 1. App. Br. 18. We also sustain the Examiner’s rejections of claims 2, 3, 5, 6, 10, 12, and 15, which Appellants’ do not argue with particularity (id.), and of claims 4, 7–9, 11, 13, 14, and 16–18, which depend from claim 1 and are not separately argued. 35 U.S.C. § 103 Rejection of Claim 19 Over Fujiwara and Tischler Appellants argue that the Examiner erred in rejecting claim 19 because neither Fujiwara nor Tischler teaches linked data structures. App. Br. 19; Reply Br. 8. Appellants also argue that Tischler does not teach or suggest “generating, by the processor of the data management system, responses to queries by using the data organization and predetermined rules to prevent improper entry of data captured in the first, second, and third data structures.” Appellants contend that Tischler’s teaching of checking proper Production Data Terminal (PDT) entry is not comparable to what Appellants claim because “the PDT entry of Tischler is related to vehicle line tracking record or ID number only and is not related to the specific data types of the second and third data structures of claim 19.” App. Br. 19 (referring to Tischler, Fig. 7 and col. 1, ll. 49–60). Appellants also argue that Tischler teaches detecting an improper entry that has already been entered, rather than preventing entry of improper data. Reply Br. 8. We are not persuaded of error. We disagree with Appellants’ argument regarding linked data structures for the reasons discussed supra. We also are unpersuaded by Appellants’ arguments against the references individually because the rejection is based on the teachings of the references Appeal 2011-005946 Application 11/778,521 7 combined. We also are unpersuaded that claim 19 does not include detecting improper entry of data that has already been entered because the claim recites “captured,” which is past tense. Moreover, Appellants do not present sufficient persuasive argument or evidence to persuade us that the Examiner’s conclusion of obviousness is erroneous. Accordingly, because we are not persuaded that the Examiner erred in finding that Fujiwara and Tischler teach or suggest “predetermined rules to prevent improper entry of data captured in the first, second, and third data structures” as recited in claim 19, we sustain the Examiner’s rejection. We also sustain the Examiner’s rejections of claims 20, 22, and 25, which Appellants do not argue with particularity (App. Br. 20), and of claims 21, 23, 24, and 26–28, which depend from claim 19 and are not argued separately. We also sustain the Examiner’s rejection of claim 30, which Appellants argue based on arguments presented for claim 1, adding only that Kratschmer is similarly deficient. App. Br. 20; Reply Br. 9. CONCLUSIONS On the record before us, we conclude: The Examiner has not erred in rejecting claims 1–18 and 29 as anticipated by Fujiwara; The Examiner has not erred in rejecting claims 19–28 as unpatentable over Fujiwara and Tischler; and The Examiner has not erred in rejecting claim 30 as unpatentable over Fujiwara and Kratschmer. Appeal 2011-005946 Application 11/778,521 8 DECISION For the above reasons, the Examiner’s rejection of claims 1–30 is affirmed. 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 msc Copy with citationCopy as parenthetical citation