Ex Parte Horrocks et al

Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences

Jun 7, 2012

11169342 (B.P.A.I. Jun. 7, 2012)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
________________

BEFORE THE BOARD OF PATENT APPEALS
AND INTERFERENCES
________________

Ex parte ADAM S. HORROCKS, CHRISTOPHER G. SEAMAN, and
MARK R. STIEGEMEIER

________________

Appeal 2010-002533
Application 11/169,342
Technology Center 2100
________________

Before MAHSHID D. SAADAT, KRISTEN L. DROESCH, and
JASON V. MORGAN, Administrative Patent Judges.

MORGAN, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL
Appeal 2010-002533
Application 11/169,342

2
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Introduction
This is an appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Examiner’s final
rejection of claims 1 – 20. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We affirm.
Invention
The invention is directed to a method for rules-based data evaluation
and process triggering executed in a records management system that
includes receiving a source document having a predetermined format,
creating at least one definition for the source document, receiving a first
instance of data corresponding to the source document, evaluating the first
instance of data using the definition, and determining (1) whether to
generate a conclusion based on the evaluation and (2) whether to perform at
least one action based on the generated conclusion (see Abstract).
Exemplary Claim
1. A method for rules-based data evaluation and process trigger
executed in a records management system that includes a server
computer and at least one client computer, the method
comprising the steps of:
at the server computer:
receiving a source document having a predetermined
format, and at a different time receiving a first instance of data
corresponding to the source document;
creating at least one definition for the source document,
each definition comprising at least one criterion for evaluating
an instance of data corresponding to the source document;
evaluating the first instance of data using the at least one
definition and determining when to generate at least one
Appeal 2010-002533
Application 11/169,342

3
conclusion based on the evaluation, each conclusion indicating
that the at least one criterion is met; and
determining whether to perform at least one action based
on at least one generated conclusion.
(Emphasis added).
Evidence and Rejection
The Examiner rejects claims 1 – 4, 6 – 9, 15, 18, and 20 under 35
U.S.C. § 102(e) as being anticipated by Chang (US 6,931,404 B2) (Ans. 3 –
8).1
ISSUE
Did the Examiner err in finding that Chang discloses “creating at least
one definition for the source document,” as recited in claim 1?
ANALYSIS
The Examiner finds that by describing that the user can define routing
and deadline criteria in the processing of documents, Chang discloses
creating at least one definition for the source document (Ans. 4 (citing
Chang col. 6, ll. 56 – 59)). Appellants submit that “Chang clearly states that
the routing and deadlines are for the issuing form, which serves as the
request (sent from the terminal device) for issuing a document” (App. Br. 12
– 13) (emphasis in the original). Appellants argue that since “the Office
Action has identified the request for issuing a document as the first instance
of data; at most, Chang describes creating at least one definition for the first
instance of data” (App. Br. 13) (emphasis in the original).

1 Claims 5, 10 – 14, 16, 17, and 19 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a). However,
these claims are not argued separately (see App. Br. 5).
Appeal 2010-002533
Application 11/169,342

4
Appellants’ arguments are not persuasive of error in the Examiner’s
findings. The Examiner correctly finds that because the claimed “‘source
document’ is linked by association to the ‘. . . instance of data corresponding
to the source document,’ any generation of a ‘definition’ for the related data
(the ‘instance’) can be reasonably interpreted as being ‘for’ (related to) the
parent data (the ‘source document’)” (Ans. 14). Appellants do not provide
evidence or persuasive arguments to illustrate a distinction between creating
at least one definition for a first instance of data corresponding to a source
document and the claimed “creating at least one definition for the source
document.” Accordingly, we sustain the rejection of claim 1, as well as the
rejection of claims 2 – 20, which fall together with claim 1 (see App. Br. 5).
DECISION
We affirm the Examiner’s decision to reject claims 1 – 20.
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