Ex Parte Adendorff et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Dec 11, 2012

10663345 (P.T.A.B. Dec. 11, 2012)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE 1
___________ 2
3
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD 4
___________ 5
6
Ex parte MICHAEL ADENDORFF, 7
TOM FAZAL, 8
and SIMON PALMER 9
___________ 10
11
Appeal 2011-003190 12
Application 10/663,345 13
Technology Center 3600 14
___________ 15
16
17
Before ANTON W. FETTING, JOSEPH A. FISCHETTI, and 18
MICHAEL W. KIM, Administrative Patent Judges. 19
20
FETTING, Administrative Patent Judge. 21
22
23
DECISION ON APPEAL24
Appeal 2011-003190
Application 10/663,345

2

STATEMENT OF THE CASE1 1
Michael Adendorff, Tom Fazal, and Simon Palmer (Appellants) seek 2
review under 35 U.S.C. § 134 of a final rejection of claims 1, 7-9, 14-16, 3
20, 22, 24, 25, 27, 33-35, 40, 45, 47, 49, 50, 52, and 55, the only claims 4
pending in the application on appeal. We have jurisdiction over the appeal 5
pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). 6
The Appellants invented a way for monitoring business performance 7
(Spec. 1:3-4). 8
An understanding of the invention can be derived from a reading of 9
exemplary claim 1, which is reproduced below (bracketed matter and some 10
paragraphing added). 11
1. A performance monitoring system comprising: 12
[1] a staging area 13
receiving data 14
from one or more data sources; 15
[2] a KPI store 16
storing performance information 17
relating to Key Performance Indicators (KPIs); 18
[3] a loader 19
transforming the received data 20
into the performance information relating to the 21
KPIs, 22
calculating scores based on 23
the received data 24
and 25
the performance information stored in the KPI 26
store 27
to indicate changes in the KPIs 28

1 Our decision will make reference to the Appellants’ Appeal Brief (“App.
Br.,” filed April 21, 2010) and the Examiner’s Answer (“Ans.,” mailed
August 6, 2010).
Appeal 2011-003190
Application 10/663,345

3

such that the scores indicate if associated KPIs are 1
getting better, worse, or is unchanged, 2
and 3
loading the performance information including the scores 4
into the KPI store; 5
and 6
[4] an information presentation unit 7
presenting the performance information to a user, 8
wherein the information presentation unit has a front-end 9
interface 10
having a data guided monitoring function 11
that receives a user input 12
and 13
presents relevant performance information 14
in a selected order 15
based on the user input 16
to allow the user 17
to monitor and analyze the 18
performance information 19
using the scores, 20
wherein the staging area receives a target value and an 21
actual value for a KPI, 22
and 23
wherein the loader calculates a score for the KPI 24
based on the actual value and the target value 25
to indicate if the KPI is good, bad or neutral 26
compared to the target value, 27
and 28
calculates another score 29
by comparing 30
the calculated score 31
and 32
a previously calculated score 33
for a previous comparison of a 34
previous actual value to the target 35
value, 36
the previously calculated score being 37
calculated and stored in the KPI store 38
at a previous loading, 39
Appeal 2011-003190
Application 10/663,345

4

so that the another score indicates 1
if the KPI is getting better, worse, or is 2
unchanged. 3
The Examiner relies upon the following prior art: 4
Sands WO 01/88769 A1 Nov. 22, 2001 5
Pokorny US 2003/0150908 A1 Aug. 14, 2003 6
Thompson US 6,668,253 B1 Dec. 23, 2003 7
8
Claims 1, 7-9, 20, 27, 33-35, 45, and 52 stand rejected under 35 9
U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Thompson and Sands. 10
Claims 14-16, 22, 24-25, 40, 47, 49-50, and 55 stand rejected under 11
35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Thompson, Sands, and Pokorny. 12
13
ISSUES 14
The issues of obviousness turn on whether Sands describes the 15
calculations recited in limitation [4]. 16
17
FACTS PERTINENT TO THE ISSUES 18
The following enumerated Findings of Fact (FF) are believed to be 19
supported by a preponderance of the evidence. 20
Facts Related to the Prior Art 21
Sands 22
01. Sands is directed to business modeling and performance analysis. 23
Sands 1:3-9. 24
02. A local deviation Di for each KPI is calculated by comparing the 25
converted actual output Wi with the calculated budget output Bi. 26
The local deviations are stored and summed to provide total 27
Appeal 2011-003190
Application 10/663,345

5

deviations Di.tot at the sub-component, component, unit, and/or 1
business level. At the business level the total deviation Di.tot is 2
compared to a threshold T to determine if the business is operating 3
within acceptable limits. Sands 10:17-22. 4
5
ANALYSIS 6
We are persuaded by the Appellants’ argument that 7
nowhere in Sands is there any teaching, or even technical 8
rationale, provided for implementing in Sands the features of a 9
loader calculating a score for a KPI based on the actual value 10
and the target value to indicate if the KPI is good, bad or 11
neutral compared to the target value, and comparing the 12
calculated score and a previously calculated score for a 13
previous comparison of a previous actual value to the target 14
value, the previously calculated score being calculated and 15
stored in the KPI store at a previous loading, so that the 16
another score indicates if the KPI is getting better, worse, or is 17
unchanged. 18
Appeal Br. 9-10. The Examiner found that Thompson described an overall 19
structure as in the claims, but not the particular calculations recited in 20
limitation [4]. The Examiner relied on Sands for these calculations. As 21
Appellants argue, however, Sands never compares the individual differences 22
themselves at different points in time, but instead totals the individual 23
differences for comparison at a total level. FF 02. All independent claims 24
contain a similar limitation. 25
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW 26
The rejection of claims 1, 7-9, 20, 27, 33-35, 45, and 52 under 35 27
U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Thompson and Sands is improper. 28
Appeal 2011-003190
Application 10/663,345

6

The rejection of claims 14-16, 22, 24-25, 40, 47, 49-50, and 55 under 1
35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Thompson, Sands, and Pokorny is 2
improper. 3
DECISION 4
The rejection of claims 1, 7-9, 14-16, 20, 22, 24, 25, 27, 33-35, 40, 45, 5
47, 49, 50, 52, and 55 is reversed. 6
7
REVERSED 8
9
10
hh 11