Ex Parte Bateni et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

May 26, 2016

12145545 (P.T.A.B. May. 26, 2016)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE
12/145,545 06/25/2008
26890 7590 05/31/2016
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.
12993 3483
EXAMINER
MEINECKE DIAZ, SUSANNA M
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
3683
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
05/31/2016 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
Exparte ARASH BATENI, EDWARD KIM, HARMINTERATWAL, and
J.P. VORSANGER
Appeal2013-002398 1
Application 12/145,5452
Technology Center 3600
Before MICHAEL C. ASTORINO, JAMES A. WORTH, and
BRADLEY B. BAY AT, Administrative Patent Judges.
WORTH, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Appellants appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Examiner's final
rejection of claims 1-8. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. §§ 134
and 6(b).
We REVERSE.
1 Our decision refers to the Appellants' Appeal Brief ("Br.," filed Mar. 5,
2012), and the Examiner's Final Office Action ("Final Act.," mailed July 29,
2011) and Answer ("Ans.," mailed Sept. 11, 2012).
2 According to Appellants, the real party in interest is Teradata US,
Incorporated (Br. 2).
Appeal2013-002398
Application 12/145,545
Introduction
Appellants' disclosure relates to "methods and systems for forecasting
product demand for retail operations, and in particular to the utilization of
regression techniques and logistical variables, such as media types, in
determining product demand forecasts." (Spec. 1). The Specification
criticizes the use of binary values that are normally used in regression
equations as causing various problems (Spec. 10 & EQN. 2). The
Specification states that "[t]o address these problems, a novel technique is
proposed to transform the logistic variables, e.g., media types, into a
numerical value." (Spec. 10).
Claims 1 and 5 are the independent claims on appeal. Claim 1,
reproduced below, is illustrative of the subject matter on appeal:
1. A computer-implemented method for forecasting demand for a
product, the method comprising the steps of:
maintaining, in a data storage device, a database of historical
product demand information;
identifying a piuraiity of factors influencing demand for said
product, said factors including categorical variables and non-
categorical variables;
transforming, by a computer in communication with said data
storage device, categorical values of said categorical variables into
numerical values;
analyzing, by said computer, said historical product demand
information for said product to determine a regression coefficient
corresponding to said categorical variables and a regression
coefficient corresponding to each one of said non-categorical
variables; and
blending, by said computer, said regression coefficients,
projected numerical values of said categorical variables, and values of
said non-categorical variables for said product to determine a product
demand forecast for said product.
(Br., Claims App.)
2
Appeal2013-002398
Application 12/145,545
Rejection on Appeal
The Examiner maintains, and the Appellants appeal, the following
rejection:
Claims 1-8 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) as being
anticipated by Acharya (US 2005/0256759 Al, pub. Nov. 17, 2005).
ANALYSIS
Appellants argue that Acharya fails to disclose "transforming ...
categorical values of said categorical variables into numerical values," as
recited by independent claim 1 (Br. 5-8).
The Examiner relies on paragraphs 90-96 and 112 of Acharya for the
teaching of transforming categorical values into numerical values (Final
Act. 3, 5; see also Ans. 7-8). The Examiner reasons that, in these portions
of Acharya, the presence of a Marketing Instrument is categorized as a
binary variabie (i.e., being impiemented or not), which is transformed into
numerical values (0 or 1) (Final Act. 3, 5). The Examiner similarly reasons
that the observance of price (or not) is transformed into numerical values (0
or 1) (Id.).
Appellants argue that binary values of 0 or 1 are not equivalent to
numerical values within the meaning of independent clam 1 (Br. 7-8).
Appellants argue that the recited statistical transformations, also described in
the Specification, are not limited to values of 0 and 1 (Id. at 8).
We are persuaded by Appellants' argument inasmuch as the claims
recite a transformation of "categorical" values into "numerical" values. The
Examiner does not provide sufficient reasoning to explain why "numerical"
values remain "categorical" in nature even after the transformation from
3
Appeal2013-002398
Application 12/145,545
"categorical" values and variables to "numerical" values, as recited by
independent claim 1.
For this reason, we do not sustain the Examiner's rejection under 35
U.S.C. § 102(b) of claim 1 and its dependent claims. Independent claim 5
contains similar language and requirements as independent claim 1. For
similar reasons, we do not sustain the Examiner's rejection under 35 U.S.C.
§ 102(b) of claim 5 and its dependent claims.
DECISION
The Examiner's decision to reject claims 1-8 under 35 U.S.C.
§ 102(b) is reversed.
REVERSED
4