Ex Parte Benveniste et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Nov 28, 2012

11493018 (P.T.A.B. Nov. 28, 2012)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
____________

BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
____________

Ex parte MIKE BENVENISTE, DAVID F. CHEUNG, RUBY KENNEDY,
YUCHUN LEE, and PATRICK MARTIN
___________

Appeal 2011-009896
Application 11/493,018
Technology Center 3600
____________

Before MURRIEL E. CRAWFORD, MEREDITH C. PETRAVICK, and
MICHAEL W. KIM, Administrative Patent Judges.

PETRAVICK, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL
Appeal 2011-009896
Application 11/493,018

2
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Mike Benveniste et al. (Appellants) seek our review under 35 U.S.C.
§ 134 of the final rejection of claims 1-38. We have jurisdiction under 35
U.S.C. § 6(b).

SUMMARY OF DECISION
We REVERSE.1

THE INVENTION
Claim 17, reproduced below, is illustrative of the subject matter on
appeal.
17. A computer program product stored on a non-transitory
computer readable medium for producing a contact history of
communications made to a contact comprising information on
when and how the communications were made during a
marketing campaign, the computer program product comprising
instructions for causing a computer to:
generate a promotion version history table for the
marketing campaign, with the promotion version history table
recording promotion attribute values for a promotion version;
generate a treatment history table for the marketing
campaign, with the treatment history table representing
promotion instances assigned to a group;
generate a contact history table for the marketing
campaign, with the contact history table recording one or more
contact entities assigned to the group;

1 Our decision will make reference to the Appellants’ Appeal Brief (“App.
Br.,” filed Jan. 31, 2011) and Reply Brief (“Reply Br.,” filed Jun. 2, 2011),
and the Examiner’s Answer (“Ans.,” mailed Apr. 14, 2011).

Appeal 2011-009896
Application 11/493,018

3
generate a first pointer to link the promotion version
history table to one or more of the treatment history table and
the contact history table;
generate a second pointer to link the contact history table
to one or more of the promotion version history table and the
treatment history table, wherein the first and second pointers to
link preserve referential integrity among the promotion version
history table, the treatment history table, and the contact history
table;
generate the contact history to provide the information on
when and how the communications were made during the
marketing campaign from the promotion version history table,
the treatment history table, and the contact history table by
joining the first pointer with the second pointer; and in response
to a query for contact history,
retrieve the contact history for a particular contact.

THE REJECTION
The Examiner relies upon the following as evidence of
unpatentability:
Bibelnieks US 2003/0208402 A1 Nov. 6, 2003
The Examiner took official notice that “it is old and well known in the
database art to link tables with pointers and preserve referential
integrity. The Oracle Version 7 database, released in 1993, links
tables with pointers and preserves referential integrity.” Ans. 4-5.

The following rejection is before us for review:
1. Claims 1-38 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. §103(a) as being
unpatentable over Bibelnieks and Official Notice.
ISSUE
The issue is whether the Examiner’s combination of Bibelnieks and
Official Notice teaches the specific recited tables linked together in the
specifically recited manner in claim 17.
Appeal 2011-009896
Application 11/493,018

4

ANALYSIS
We are persuaded by the Appellants’ argument (App. Br. 16-22 and
Reply Br. 2-6) that the Examiner erred in rejecting claim 17. We agree with
the Appellants that the combination of the cited portions of Bibelnieks and
Official Notice does not teach the specific recited tables linked together in
the specifically recited manner (see Reply Br. 2-4). Independent claims 1
and 33 recite similar limitations and are rejected using the same rationale.
See Ans. 3-6. The Examiner fails to establish a prima facie showing of
obviousness, and the rejection of claims 1, 17, and 33, and claims 2-16, 18-
32, and 34-38, dependent thereon, under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) and Official
Notice is reversed.

DECISION
The decision of the Examiner to reject claims 1-38 is reversed.

REVERSED

mls