Ex Parte Cereghini et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Jun 28, 2016

11755783 (P.T.A.B. Jun. 28, 2016)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE
111755,783 05/31/2007
26890 7590 06/30/2016
JAMES M. STOVER
TERADATA US, INC.
10000 INNOVATION DRIVE
DAYTON, OH 45342
FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
Paul M. Cereghini
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.
12493 9723
EXAMINER
NELSON, FREDA ANN
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
3628
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
06/30/2016 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 PAUL M. CEREGHINI, JUDY BA YER, and
ENRICO GALIMBERTI
Appeal2014-002770
Application 11/755,783
Technology Center 3600
Before MURRIEL E. CRAWFORD, NINA L. MEDLOCK, and
BRADLEY B. BAY AT, Administrative Patent Judges.
CRAWFORD, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Appellants seek our review under 35 U.S.C. § 134 of the Examiner's
final decision rejecting claims 3, 7, and 8. We have jurisdiction over the
appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b ).
We REVERSE.
Appeal2014-002770
Application 11/755,783
Claim 3 is illustrative:
3. A computer-implemented method for determining the
optimal price for retail products, the steps comprising:
a) establishing a database, implemented within a data
warehouse, containing historical sales data for a plurality of
products sold by a retail enterprise;
b) selecting a plurality of products for pricing analysis;
c) for each one of said selected products, analyzing, by
a computer in communication with said data warehouse,
historical sales data contained in said database to determine
how a change in price of said selected product effects profit
from sales of said selected product;
d) for each one of said selected products, analyzing, by
said computer, historical sales data contained in said database
to determine how a change in price of said selected product
effects profits from sales of other ones of said selected
products;
e) combining, by said computer, the results of steps c)
and d) to determine a price for each one of said selected
products which optimizes the combined profit from the sales of
said plurality of products; and
f) displaying, on a display monitor in communication
with said computer, the results of step e ).
Appellants appeal the following rejection:
Claims 3, 7, and 8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
unpatentable over Kitts (US 7,197,474 Bl, iss. Mar. 27, 2007) and Myr et
al. (US 7,379,890 B2, iss. May 27, 2008).
ISSUE
Did the Examiner err in rejecting the claims because the prior art does
not disclose or suggest combining the results of the selecting step to
determine a price for each one of the selected products to optimize the
combined profit from sales of the plurality of products?
2
Appeal2014-002770
Application 11/755,783
ANALYSIS
The Appellants argue that the cited references individually or in
combination do not disclose determining the price for each one of the
selected plurality of products to optimize the combined profit from the sales
of the plurality of products. (Br. 6.) We agree.
The Examiner relies on Myr at column 12, line 54 to column 13,
line 15 and column 14, lines 31----67 for teaching this subject matter. (Final
Act. 5.) We find that column 12, lines 54 to column 13, line 15 of Myr
discloses that products in common categories tend to exhibit substitute
demand such that changes in sales of one product will affect the sales of
other products in this category. As such, it is necessary to consider the
revenue optimization of groups of common products rather than a single
product. Although Myr recognizes that a change in sales of one product
may affect the sales of products in a group, there is no disclosure in this
portion of Myr of determining the price for each one of the seiected products
in this common category so that the combined profit from the sales of all the
products in the category is optimized. We find that column 14, lines 31----67
of Myr discloses a joint pricing promotion model which utilizes various
factors to arrive at U, which is the vector of log-demands. These factors
include the design matrix, the common effects matrix, individual effects
matrix, the price regression coefficient matrix, and the noise matrix. (Myr,
col. 14, 11. 39-47.) This portion ofMyr does discuss optimizing pricing but
is directed to optimizing category prices and revenue and promotion
schedules rather than determining the price of each product needed to
optimize the category revenue.
3
Appeal2014-002770
Application 11/755,783
In view of the foregoing, we will not sustain the Examiner's rejection
of claim 3. We will also not sustain the Examiner's rejection of independent
claim 7, and claim 8 dependent therefrom, because the Examiner has not
established that the system disclosed in Myr has the capability of
determining the price for each one of the products which optimizes the
combined profit from the sales of the plurality of products.
DECISION
We reverse the Examiner's§ 103 rejection.
ORDER
REVERSED
4