Ex Parte Dettinger et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Jul 30, 2014

11272583 (P.T.A.B. Jul. 30, 2014)

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.
11/272,583 11/10/2005 Richard D. Dettinger ROC920050155US1 1755
46797 7590 07/31/2014
IBM CORPORATION, INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY LAW
DEPT 917, BLDG. 006-1
3605 HIGHWAY 52 NORTH
ROCHESTER, MN 55901-7829
EXAMINER
ROSTAMI, MOHAMMAD S
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2156
MAIL DATE DELIVERY MODE
07/31/2014 PAPER
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.
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
_____________

BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
_____________

Ex parte RICHARD D. DETTINGER, JOHN D. DIETEL,
DANIEL P. KOLZ and JEFFERY W. TENNER
_____________

Appeal 2012–006871
Application 11/272,583
Technology Center 2100
______________

Before, JEFFREY T. SMITH, MAHSHID D. SAADAT, and
ROBERT E. NAPPI, Administrative Patent Judges.

Per Curiam.

DECISION ON APPEAL

This is a decision on appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) of the rejection
of claims 1 through 20.
We affirm.
INVENTION
The invention is directed to a method for transforming an abstract rule
having a conditional statement and a consequential statement. The
Consequential statement defines a particular recommendation that is
returned when the conditional statement is satisfied. See Abstract of
Appellants’ Specification. Claim 1 is illustrative of the invention and is
reproduced below:
Appeal 2012–006871
Application 11/272,583
2

1. A computer-implemented method of generating
recommendations using a suitable rules engine, comprising:
retrieving an abstract rule having a conditional statement and a
consequential statement; wherein the consequential statement defines
a particular recommendation that is returned when the conditional
statement is satisfied; wherein the conditional statement and the
consequential statement are specified using logical field definitions
defined in an abstraction model that models underlying physical data,
wherein the logical field definitions each specify at least a logical
field name and an access method mapping the logical field name to
corresponding underlying physical data; and wherein the conditional
statement and the consequential statement are further defined by
operators selected from at least one of logical operators and arithmetic
operators, where the operators each relate a respective logical field
definition to at least one of: (i) another respective logical field
definition and (ii) a value for a respective logical field definition;
transforming the abstract rule into a transformed rule, wherein
transforming the abstract rule comprises:
generating a sequence of one or more script commands
configured to evaluate the conditional statement using data accessed
using the logical field definitions specified for the conditional
statement of the abstract rule; executing, by the rules engine, the
transformed rule; and
if the conditional statement is resolved to true for the executed
transformed rule, returning the particular recommendation specified
by the consequential statement.

REJECTIONS AT ISSUE
The Examiner has rejected claims 1 through 20 under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a) as unpatentable over Cousins (U.S. 6,732,094 B1; May 4, 2004),
and Dettinger (U.S. 2003/0167274 A1; Sept. 4, 2003). Answer 5–17.
1

1
Throughout this opinion we refer to the Appeal Brief dated August 15,
2011, and the Examiner’s Answer mailed on December 21, 2011.
Appeal 2012–006871
Application 11/272,583
3

The Examiner has rejected claims 9 and 19 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a)
as unpatentable over Cousins, Dettinger and Bigus (U.S. 2005/0071222 A1;
Mar. 31, 2005). Answer 18–20.

ISSUES
Appellants argue, on pages 12 through 17 of the Appeal Brief, the
Examiner’s rejection of independent claims 1 and 11 is in error. These
arguments present us with two issues:
1) Did the Examiner err in finding the combination of Cousins and
Dettinger teach transforming an abstract rule where the rule has a
conditional statement and a consequential statement; and these
statements are specified using logical field definitions defined in
an abstraction model that models underlying physical data?
2) Did the Examiner err in finding the combination of Cousins and
Dettinger teach the consequential statement defines a particular
recommendation that is returned when the conditional statement is
returned?
Appellants’ arguments directed to independent claims 10 and 20 on
page 17 of the Brief merely recite language from the claims and allege the
features are not taught. This does not amount to a separate argument under
37 C.F.R. § 41.37.
Appellants’ arguments directed to claims 9 and 19 on pages 17 and 18
of the Appeal Brief do not present us with additional issues as Appellants
assert the rejection is in error for the reasons discussed with respect to claims
1 and 11.

Appeal 2012–006871
Application 11/272,583
4

ANALYSIS
The Examiner has provided a comprehensive response to Appellants’
arguments. We have reviewed the Examiner’s response and agree with the
Exmaienr’s conclusion. We add the following for emphasis. We concur
with the Examiner’s finding that Cousins teaches transforming an abstract
rule and that figure 5 teaches a logical field definition and conditional
statement. Answer 20–23. Further, the Examiner finds Dettinger also
teaches the logical field definition. Answer 15 and 16. We concur with the
Examiner’s findings. Accordingly, we sustain the Examiner’s rejection of
independent claims 1 and 11. As Appellants arguments directed to the
remainder of the claims rejected do not present us with additional issues, we
similarly sustain the Examiner’s rejection of claims 2 through 10 and 12
through 20.

DECISION
The decision of the Examiner to reject claims 1 through 20 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

ELD