Ex Parte Bateni et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

May 10, 2016

12255696 (P.T.A.B. May. 10, 2016)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE
12/255,696 10/22/2008
26890 7590 05/27/2016
JAMES M, STOVER
TERADATA US, INC.
10000 INNOVATION DRIVE
DAYTON, OH 45342
FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
Arash Bateni
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
ATTORNEY DOCKET NO. CONFIRMATION NO.
13874 3842
EXAMINER
WALKER III, GEORGE H
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
3683
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
05/27/2016 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):
michelle. boldman @teradata.com
jam es.stover@teradata.com
td.uspto@outlook.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte ARASH BATENI and EDWARD KIM
Appeal2013-005128
Application 12/255,696
Technology Center 3600
Before JOHN C. KERINS, JAMES P. CAL VE, and WILLIAM A. CAPP,
Administrative Patent Judges.
CAL VE, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Appellants appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134 from the final rejection of
claims 1, 3---6, 8, and 9. See Br. 2. Claims 2 and 7 are cancelled. Id. We
have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b ).
We AFFIRM.
Appeal2013-005128
Application 12/255,696
CLAIMED SUBJECT MATTER
Claims 1 and 5 are independent. Claim 1 is reproduced below.
1. A computer-implemented method for forecasting
product demand for a product, the method comprising the steps
of:
maintaining, in a data storage device, a database of
historical product demand information and causal variable data;
analyzing, by a computer in communication with said data
storage device, said historical product demand information and
said causal variable data for said product to determine regression
coefficients corresponding to said causal variables;
constructing, by said computer, a multivariable regression
equation defining a relationship between product demand, said
causal variables, and said corresponding regression coefficients;
calculating, by said computer, t -ratios for each regression
coefficient corresponding to said causal variables;
for each regression coefficient having a t-ratio below a
predetermined value, removing, by said computer, the regression
coefficient having a t-ratio below said predetermined value and
its corresponding causal variable from said multivariable
regression equation; and
blending, by said computer, said regression coefficients
and corresponding causal variables remaining in said
multivariable regression equation for said product to determine a
product demand forecast for said product.
REJECTIONS
Claims 1 and 5 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 112, first paragraph, as
failing to comply with the written description requirement.
Claims 1 and 5 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 112, second paragraph,
as being indefinite.
Claims 1, 4---6, and 9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Singh (US 2002/0169657 Al, pub. Nov. 14, 2002) and
Pinto (US 2005/0234762 Al, pub. Oct. 20, 2005).
2
Appeal2013-005128
Application 12/255,696
Claims 3 and 8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable
over Singh, Pinto, and Official Notice.
ANALYSIS
Claims 1 and 5 for indefiniteness
The Examiner found claims 1 and 5 were indefinite because the term
"regression coefficient" lacks antecedent basis. Final Act. 5. Appellants do
not argue this rejection. Br. 5-10. Thus, we summarily affirm. MANUAL OF
PATENT EXAMINING PROCEDURE§ 1215.03 (9th Ed. Rev. 7, Nov. 2015).
Claims 1, 4-6, and 9 as unpatentable over Singh and Pinto
Appellants argue claims 1, 4---6, and 9 as a group. Br. 7-10. We
select claim 1 as representative. 37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(iv). Claims 4---6 and 9
stand or fall with claim 1.
The Examiner found that Singh teaches the methods of claims 1 and 5
except analyzing historical product demand information and causal variables
to identify variables with statistically significant effects on demand and
removing coefficients with t-ratios below predetermined value. Final Act.
6-9. The Examiner relied on Pinto to teach these features and determined
that it would have been obvious to combine Pinto's features with Singh as a
combination of known elements according to established functions. Id. at 8.
The Examiner found that paragraphs 179 and 181 of Pinto teach determining
t-ratios for coefficients and variables, and excluding coefficients and related
variables based on t-ratios. Ans. 4. The Examiner cited paragraph 185 of
Pinto as evidence that Pinto' s regression method is applied to coefficients
and variables "to obtain an optimal set of coefficients for the variables that
are significant at the 0.025 level or below" where the significance level is
at-ratio. Id. (citing Pinto, para. 185).
3
Appeal2013-005128
Application 12/255,696
Appellants argue that Pinto describes a filtering procedure used to
reduce the dimensions of a dataset by discarding variables that fall below a
criterion by determining t-ratios for dataset variables rather than regression
coefficients that correspond to causal variables as recited in claims 1 and 5.
Br. 8-9. Appellants also argue that Pinto fails to teach for each regression
coefficient having at-ratio below a predetermined value, removing the
regression coefficient, as recited in claims 1 and 5. Id. at 9.
The Examiner's findings that Pinto determines regression coefficients
corresponding to causal variables for historical product information and
removes coefficients with at-ratio below a predetermined value and their
corresponding causal variables is supported by a preponderance of evidence.
Paragraph 181 of Pinto teaches t-ratios used as a filtering statistic in a least
squares regression analysis to filter out/exclude non-significant variables so
that modeling proceeds efficiently. Pinto, para. 181. Paragraph 185 of Pinto
teaches that this modeling method uses regression to obtain an optimal set of
coefficients for variables that are significant at the 0.025 level or below. Id.
at para. 185. Appellants' have not persuaded us of error in the Examiner's
determination that this teaching indicates the t-ratio exclusion process is
applied to coefficients and their corresponding variables, as claimed. Thus,
we affirm the rejection of claims 1, 4---6, and 9.
Claims 3 and 8 as unpatentable over Singh, Pinto, and Official Notice
Appellants do not present arguments for the rejection of claims 3 and
8 as unpatentable over Singh, Pinto, and Official Notice. See Br. 5-10.
Thus, we summarily affirm this rejection. MANUAL OF PATENT EXAMINING
PROCEDURE§ 1215.03 (9th Ed. Rev. 7, Nov. 2015).
4
Appeal2013-005128
Application 12/255,696
Claims 1 and 5 for lack of written description
The Examiner found that "a computer" and "a data storage device" in
claims 1 and 5 are not disclosed in the specification. Final Act. 4; Ans. 2-3.
Appellants argue that a skilled artisan would understand the claimed method
operates in a computer system because it is an improvement of the Teradata
Demand Chain Management System, which provides analytical applications
and modules for the Teradata Data Warehouse. Br. 6-7.
Because we affirm the rejections under 35 U.S.C. §§ 112, second
paragraph and 103(a), we do not address this ground of rejection. 37 C.F.R.
§ 41.50(a)(l) ("affirmance of the rejection of a claim on any of the grounds
specified constitutes a general affirmance of the decision of the examiner on
that claim"). If the Examiner maintains this rejection, the Examiner should
consider the disclosures of the incorporated applications regarding computer
readable media, computers, computational time, relational databases, SQL
queries, and networks as they relate to the claims of the present application.
Application No. 11/967,645, filed Dec. 31, 2007, i-fi-f l, 2, 5, 176, 182, 409,
410, 413, 414, 424; Application No. 11/938,812, filed Nov. 13, 2007, 2:4--
4:16; Application No. 11/613,404, filed Dec. 20, 2006, 1:13--4:10, 8:1-8:23.
DECISION
We AFFIRM the rejections of claims 1, 3---6, 8, and 9 under 35 U.S.C.
§ 112, second paragraph, and under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as set forth above.
No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with
this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a)(l )(iv).
AFFIRMED
5