Ex Parte Bateni et al

Patent Trial and Appeal BoardApr 22, 2016

12512071 (P.T.A.B. Apr. 22, 2016)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE 12/512,071 0713012009 26890 7590 04/26/2016 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. 20418.EUOl 5000 EXAMINER CHONG CRUZ, NADJA N ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 3623 NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE 04/26/2016 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 Appeal 2013-009501 1 Application 12/512,071 2 Technology Center 3600 Before BIBHU R. MOHANTY, NINA L. MEDLOCK, and TARA L. HUTCHINGS, Administrative Patent Judges. MEDLOCK, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL STATEMENT OF THE CASE Appellants appeal under 35 U.S.C. Â§ 134(a) from the Examiner's final rejection of claims 1, 2, 4--7, 9-12, 14, and 15. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. Â§ 6(b). We REVERSE. 1 Our decision references Appellants' Appeal Brief ("App. Br.," filed April 1, 2013) and Reply Brief ("Reply Br.," filed July 22, 2013), and the Examiner's Answer ("Ans.," mailed May 20, 2013) and Final Office Action ("Final Act.," mailed June 1, 2012). 2 Appellants identify Teradata US, Incorporated as the real party in interest. App. Br. 2. Appeal2013-009501 Application 12/512,071 CLAIMED INVENTION Appellants' claimed invention "relates to methods and systems for forecasting product demand using a causal methodology, based on multiple regression techniques, and in particular to the inclusion of weather related data as a set of causal factors for forecasting product demand using a causal methodology" (Spec. i-f 8). Claim 1, reproduced below with added bracketed notations, is illustrative of the subject matter on appeal: 1. A computer-implemented method for forecasting product demand for a product during a future sales period, the method comprising the steps of: [(a)] maintaining, on a computer, an electronic database of historical product demand information; [ (b)] calculating, by said computer, an initial demand forecast for said product during said future sales period from said historical demand information; [( c )] identifying a plurality of weather-related causal factors influencing demand for said product; [ ( d)] receiving, at said computer, historical weather information; [ ( e)] analyzing, by said computer, said historical product demand information and said historical weather information to determine regression coefficients corresponding to said weather- related causal variables; [(t)] constructing, by said computer, a multivariable regression equation defining a relationship between product demand, said weather-related causal variables, and said corresponding regression coefficients; [(g)] calculating, by said computer, t-ratios for each regression coefficient corresponding to said weather-related causal variables; 2 Appeal2013-009501 Application 12/512,071 [(h)] 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 weather-related causal variable from said multivariable regression equation; [(i)] receiving, at said computer, forecast values for said weather-related causal variables during said future sales period; [and] [U)] blending, by said computer, said initial demand forecast, and said regression coefficients and corresponding forecast values for said weather-related causal variables remaining in said multivariable regression equation to determine a product demand forecast for said product. REJECTION Claims 1, 2, 4--7, 9-12, 14, and 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. Â§ 103(a) as unpatentable over Corby (US 7,752,106 Bl, iss. July 6, 2010), Singh (US 7 ,080,026 B2, iss. July 18, 2006), and Brocklebank (US 2006/0247900 Al, pub. Nov. 2, 2006). ANALYSIS Independent claim 1 and dependent claims 2, 4, and 5 Appellants argue that the Examiner erred in rejecting independent claim 1 under 35 U.S.C. Â§ 103(a) because, inter alia, Corby, on which the Examiner relies, does not disclose or suggest "calculating ... an initial demand forecast for said product during said future sales period from said historical demand information," i.e., limitation (b ), as recited in claim 1 (App. Br. 9). Appellants note that Corby is directed to a system and method for predicting a weather-based financial index value, and acknowledge that the 3 Appeal2013-009501 Application 12/512,071 weather based financial index provides insight into the effect weather can have on financial markets, including the effect weather can have on consumer demand for products and services, commodities, and commodity prices. But Appellants maintain that the Corby system and method do not forecast future product demand, i.e., "calculate[ e] ... an initial demand forecast for said product during said future sales period from said historical demand information," as called for in claim 1 (id. at 9-10). We agree. Corby discloses an inventory database at column 13, lines 1-23, cited by the Examiner (see Final Act. 4--5), and describes that the inventory data base includes historical, current, and/or future inventory information based on at least one component of the weather-based financial index and also may include supply and/or demand information. But we find nothing in this portion of Corby that discloses or suggests "calculating ... an initial demand forecast for said product during said future sales period from said historical demand information," as recited in claim 1. We also find no such disclosure or suggestion at column 5, lines 41- 44 of Corby, on which the Examiner also relies (see Ans. 4). There, Corby discloses that a stock-to-use ratio provides a measure of the relationship between supply and demand for a commodity, and describes that the supply and demand can be determined based on any period, e.g., a month, year, 2 years, 5 years, etc. But, we fail to see how, and the Examiner does not explain how, this stock-to-use ratio discloses or suggests calculating ... an initial demand forecast for said product during said future sales period from said historical demand information," as recited in claim 1. 4 Appeal2013-009501 Application 12/512,071 In view of the foregoing, we do not sustain the Examiner's rejection of claim 1under35 U.S.C. Â§ 103(a). For the same reasons, we also do not sustain the Examiner's rejection of dependent claims 2, 4, and 5. Independent claims 6 and 11, and dependent claims 7, 9, 10, 12, 14, and 15 Independent claims 6 and 11 include language substantially similar to the language of claim 1. Therefore, we do not sustain the Examiner's rejection under 35 U.S.C. Â§ 103(a) of independent claims 6 and 11, and claims 7, 9, 10, 12, 14, and 15, which depend therefrom, for the same reasons set forth with respect to claim 1. DECISION The Examiner's rejection of claims 1, 2, 4--7, 9-12, 14, and 15 under 35 U.S.C. Â§ 103(a) is reversed. REVERSED 5