Ex Parte Grana

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Sep 19, 2014

11266876 (P.T.A.B. Sep. 19, 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.
11/266,876 11/04/2005 Clare Grana 66033-5001/01 8622
7590 09/22/2014
Morgan Lewis & Bockius LLP
1111 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
Washington, DC 20004
EXAMINER
PHAM, HUNG Q
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2159
MAIL DATE DELIVERY MODE
09/22/2014 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 CLARE GRANA
____________

Appeal 2012-005787
Application 11/266,876
Technology Center 2100
____________

Before JOSEPH F. RUGGIERO, CAROLYN D. THOMAS, and
JASON J. CHUNG, Administrative Patent Judges.

THOMAS, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL

Appellant seeks our review under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) of the Examiner
finally rejecting claims 1–3, all the claims pending in the application.
Claims 4–10 are cancelled. We have jurisdiction over the appeal under 35
U.S.C. § 6(b).
We AFFIRM.

STATEMENT OF THE CASE
The present invention relates generally to procuring, analyzing, and
communicating dietary information. See Abstract.

Appeal 2012-005787
Application 11/266,876

2
Claim 1 is illustrative:
Claim 1: A method of communicating dietary information
between a user and a combination of databases comprising:
storing dietary information on a combination of databases
including a menu/recipe database, a nutritional database, and a
medication database;
searching the combination of databases to identify specific
dietary information meeting user criteria, wherein said searching
comprises a personal database interacting with said menu/recipe
database and at least one of said nutritional database and said
medication database;
manipulating the identified specific dietary information to
provide a table of output dietary information; and
transmitting the output dietary information from said table to
the user.

Appellant appeals the following rejections:

Claims 1–3 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over the combination of Petot (Journal of the American
Dietetic Association, Vol. 98, No. 9, September 1998, Pages 1009-1014) and
Kocher (US 6,652,455 B1, November 25, 2003).

Claim Groupings
Based on Appellant’s arguments in the Appeal Brief, we will decide
the appeal on the basis of claim 1, as set forth below. See 37 C.F.R.
41.37(c)(1)(vii).

ANALYSIS
Issue: Did the Examiner err in finding that the combined teachings of
Petot and Kocher teaches and/or suggest a personal database interacting with
Appeal 2012-005787
Application 11/266,876

3
said menu/recipe database and at least one of said nutritional database and
said medication database?
Appellant contends that “it is apparent that a sample input screen of
CAMP system and a second nutrient database does not meet the recitation of
‘a personal database interacting with said menu/recipe database and at least
one of said nutritional database and said medication database” (App. Br. 9-
10).
The Examiner finds that in Petot’s Fig. 1, the “Personal Preferences,
Case Base of Menus[,] and Database of Foods are considered as a personal
database, a menu/recipe database[,] and a nutritional database[,]
respectively” (Ans. 9). We agree with the Examiner.
We refer to, rely on, and adopt the Examiner's findings and
conclusions set forth in the Answer. Our discussions here will be limited to
the following points of emphasis.
Here, the Examiner directs our attention to Petot’s Case-based Menu
Planner (CAMP) system where “[m]enus were obtained from reputable
sources (15-17) and modified as needed to ensure that they satisfy the RDIs,
Dietary Guidelines for Americans (18)” (see Petot 1011). In other words,
Petot’s system receives user’s preferences and search a combination of
databases, i.e., database of menus and a nutrient database, to adapt a menu to
meet personal needs (see Fig. 1). We see no error in the Examiner’s
equating the claimed personal database (see Spec. 12:11–15) with Petot’s
stored user preferences, the claimed menu/recipe database with Petot’s base
of 84 menus, and the claimed nutritional database with Petot’s USDA
Nutrient database (see Ans. 5–6). We find the aforementioned Examiner’s
Appeal 2012-005787
Application 11/266,876

4
interpretation to be consistent with Appellant’s descriptions in the
Specification.
On this record, we find Appellant has failed to present substantive
arguments and supporting evidence persuasive of Examiner error regarding
the aforementioned disputed limitation. See In re Lovin, 652 F.3d 1349,
1357 (Fed. Cir. 2011) (“we hold that the Board reasonably interpreted Rule
41.37 to require more substantive arguments in an appeal brief than a mere
recitation of the claim elements and a naked assertion that the corresponding
elements were not found in the prior art.”). Here, Appellant merely contends
that the Examiner’s finding “does not meet the recitation of ‘a personal
database interacting with said menu/recipe database and at least one of said
nutritional database and said medication database” (see App. Br. 9-10),
without explaining why the claimed recitation is distinguishable from the
Examiner’s findings. Mere attorney’s arguments and conclusory statements
that are unsupported by factual evidence are entitled to little probative value.
In re Geisler, 116 F.3d 1465, 1470 (Fed. Cir. 1997); see also In re De
Blauwe, 736 F.2d 699, 705 (Fed. Cir. 1984); 37 C.F.R. § 1.111(b); and Ex
parte Belinne, No. 2009-004693, slip op. at 7-8 (BPAI Aug. 10, 2009)
(informative), available at
http://www.uspto.gov/web/offices/dcom/bpai/its/fd09004693.pdf.
For these reasons, we are not persuaded the Examiner erred in finding
that the combined teachings of Petot and Kocher discloses the invention as
recited in independent claim 1, and in claims 2 and 3, which were not argued
separately. Therefore, the Examiner did not err in rejecting claims 1–3
under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a).
Appeal 2012-005787
Application 11/266,876

5

DECISION
We affirm the Examiner’s § 103(a) rejection.
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
sl