Ex Parte Adler

Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences

Feb 8, 2011

10091859 (B.P.A.I. Feb. 8, 2011)

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.
10/091,859 03/06/2002 Richard M. Adler ADLER 01.01 6936
22186 7590 02/08/2011
MENDELSOHN, DRUCKER, & ASSOCIATES, P.C.
1500 JOHN F. KENNEDY BLVD., SUITE 405
PHILADELPHIA, PA 19102
EXAMINER
ERB, NATHAN
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
3628
MAIL DATE DELIVERY MODE
02/08/2011 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 1
___________ 2
3
BEFORE THE BOARD OF PATENT APPEALS 4
AND INTERFERENCES 5
___________ 6
7
Ex parte RICHARD M. ADLER 8
___________ 9
10
Appeal 2009-014248 11
Application 10/091,859 12
Technology Center 3600 13
___________ 14
15
Before MURRIEL E. CRAWFORD, ANTON W. FETTING, and 16
JOSEPH A. FISCHETTI, Administrative Patent Judges. 17
FETTING, Administrative Patent Judge. 18
DECISION ON APPEAL1 19

1 The two-month time period for filing an appeal or commencing a civil
action, as recited in 37 C.F.R. § 1.304, or for filing a request for rehearing,
as recited in 37 C.F.R. § 41.52, begins to run from the “MAIL DATE”
(paper delivery mode) or the “NOTIFICATION DATE” (electronic delivery
mode) shown on the PTOL-90A cover letter attached to this decision.

Appeal 2009-014248
Application 10/091,859

2
STATEMENT OF THE CASE2 1

2 Our decision will make reference to the Appellant’s Appeal Brief (“App.
Br.,” filed February 22, 2007) and Reply Brief (“Reply Br.,” filed August 4,
2009), and the Examiner’s Answer (“Ans.,” mailed July 6, 2009), and Final
Rejection (“Final Rej.,” mailed July 14, 2006).
Richard M. Adler (Appellant) seeks review under 35 U.S.C. § 134 2
(2002) of a final rejection of claims 64-121, the only claims pending in the 3
application on appeal. We have jurisdiction over the appeal pursuant to 4
35 U.S.C. § 6(b) (2002). 5
The Appellant invented a way of modeling and analyzing complex 6
strategic decisions (Specification 1:7-8). 7
An understanding of the invention can be derived from a reading of 8
exemplary claims 106, 115, and 64, which are reproduced below [bracketed 9
matter and some paragraphing added]. 10
106. A computer-implemented method of constructing a 11
decision-support application for a decision domain, the method 12
comprising: 13
(a) constructing a decision model 14
of the decision domain 15
for creating a plurality of scenarios in the decision 16
domain, 17
Appeal 2009-014248
Application 10/091,859

3
the decision model comprising a plurality of decision-1
model entity classes; 2
(b) creating specifications 3
for linking the plurality of decision-model entity classes 4
to a decision-support simulator framework; 5
(c) populating an application database 6
for the decision domain 7
based on the plurality of decision-model entity classes; 8
and 9
(d) compiling 10
the application database and 11
the specifications 12
to generate the decision-support application, 13
wherein the decision-support application is executable 14
under the decision- support simulator framework. 15
115. A computer-implemented method of supporting decision-16
making for a decision domain, the method comprising: 17
(a) generating, 18
based on user input, 19
a plurality of alternative scenarios 20
representing possible evolutions 21
of a baseline scenario; 22
(b) generating, 23
based on user input, 24
a plurality of strategies 25
for influencing the alternative scenarios; 26
(c) simulating outcomes of each of the strategies 27
for each of the alternative scenarios over time; and 28
(d) providing output data, 29
Appeal 2009-014248
Application 10/091,859

4
based on the simulated outcomes, 1
to permit comparison of the simulated outcomes 2
for each of the strategies. 3
64. A computer-implemented method for supporting decision-4
making, the method comprising: 5
(a) constructing a model of a decision domain 6
for creating a plurality of scenarios in the decision 7
domain, 8
the model constructed based on 9
a received selection of a predefined model 10
from among a plurality of predefined models of 11
decision domains; 12
(b) receiving user-specified 13
(i) baseline scenario parameters defining a baseline 14
scenario, 15
(ii) scenario parameters defining one or more alternative 16
scenarios, and 17
(iii) decision parameters defining one or more candidate 18
decisions, wherein: 19
each scenario depicts a situation in the decision domain 20
for which one or more candidate decisions 21
potentially affecting the corresponding scenario 22
parameters 23
could be adopted, 24
each of the one or more alternative scenarios represents a 25
possible future 26
into which the baseline scenario could evolve, and 27
each candidate decision represents an intervention 28
for influencing the alternative scenario parameters 29
defining the one or more alternative scenarios; 30
(c) simulating, 31
Appeal 2009-014248
Application 10/091,859

5
for one or more future time instants, 1
each of the one or more alternative scenarios as 2
influenced by 3
(i) each candidate decision represented by the 4
candidate decision parameters and 5
(ii) parameters characterizing assumptions in 6
alternative scenarios; and 7
(d) for each candidate decision represented by the candidate 8
decision parameters, 9
outputting simulation results 10
based on the alternative scenario parameters 11
corresponding to the simulated alternative 12
scenarios 13
at one or more future time instants. 14
The Examiner relies upon the following prior art: 15
Clarisse US 5,247,651 Sept. 21, 1993
Watanabe US 5,761,486 June 2, 1998
Steinman US 5,850,538 Dec. 15, 1998
Huang US 5,953,707 Sept. 14, 1999
Ball US 6,212,502 B1 Apr. 3, 2001
Eder US 6,321,205 B1 Nov. 20, 2001
Kramer US 6,327,574 B1 Dec. 4, 2001
Honarvar US 6,405,173 B1 June 11, 2002
El Ata US 6,990,437 B1 Jan. 24, 2006
Bonabeau US 2001/0053991 A1 Dec. 20, 2001
Kim US 2002/0065701 A1 May 30, 2002
Eicher US 2002/0099598 A1 July 25, 2002
Appeal 2009-014248
Application 10/091,859

6
Claim 18 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 112, second paragraph, as 1
failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the invention. 2
Claims 64-68, 73-81, 89-90, 99-110, 112-116, and 119-121 stand 3
rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 102(e) as anticipated by Eder. 4
Claims 69 and 70 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as 5
unpatentable over Eder and Honarvar. 6
Claims 71, 72, and 111 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as 7
unpatentable over Eder and Kramer. 8
Claim 82 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over 9
Eder and Huang. 10
Claims 83-85, 87, and 117 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as 11
unpatentable over Eder. 12
Claim 86 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over 13
Eder and Kim. 14
Claims 88 and 93 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as 15
unpatentable over Eder and Steinman. 16
Claims 91, 95, and 96 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as 17
unpatentable over Eder and Bonabeau. 18
Claim 92 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over 19
Eder and Eicher. 20
Claim 94 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over 21
Eder and Ball. 22
Appeal 2009-014248
Application 10/091,859

7
Claim 97 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over 1
Eder and Watanabe. 2
Claim 98 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over 3
Eder and Clarisse. 4
Claim 118 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over 5
Eder and El Ata. 6
ISSUES 7
The issue of anticipation turns primarily on whether the claims require 8
plural scenarios, and if so, whether Eder describes such. Other limitations 9
the issue of anticipation turns on are described in the Analysis section infra. 10
The issues of obviousness turn primarily on whether the secondary 11
references merely demonstrate evidence of the knowledge of one of ordinary 12
skill, or in the alternative describe implementation techniques useful for 13
implementing Eder. 14
FACTS PERTINENT TO THE ISSUES 15
The following enumerated Findings of Fact (FF) are believed to be 16
supported by a preponderance of the evidence. 17
Facts Related to the Prior Art 18
Eder 19
01. Eder is directed to evaluating the probable impact of user-20
specified or system generated changes in business value drivers on 21
the other value drivers, the financial performance and the future 22
value of a commercial enterprise. Eder 1:18-22. 23
Appeal 2009-014248
Application 10/091,859

8
02. Eder’s automated system simulated the impact of proposed 1
changes in business operation on the value drivers, the financial 2
performance and the future value of a commercial enterprise that 3
was enabled by a detailed, rigorous evaluation of all the elements 4
of the enterprise that create business value and is capable of 5
generating detailed simulations for businesses in new industries. 6
Eder 4:60-67. 7
03. Eder tracks the changes in elements of business value and total 8
business value over time by comparing the current valuation to 9
previously calculated valuations. Eder produces reports provided 10
by traditional accounting systems. Eder 6:43-54. 11
04. Eder’s application software controls the performance to 12
calculate the detailed business valuation, extracting data from 13
databases and then storing the data in the application database. 14
The databases contain information regarding historical financial 15
performance, operation management, forecast financial 16
performance, and sales prospects and transactions. The user 17
provides the information the application software requires to 18
determine which data need to be extracted and transferred from 19
the database to the application. Eder 9:41 – 10:14. 20
05. Eder’s operation is dependent upon a scenario table. If there are 21
changes in value drivers for seeking to understand the probable 22
impact of these changes on the other value drivers, the financial 23
performance and the future value of the enterprise, then Eder 24
iterates the model for convergence of output. Alternatively, Eder’s 25
Appeal 2009-014248
Application 10/091,859

9
simulation is run in a goal seeking mode. Eder saves the resulting 1
information in the scenario table to display the mid point and the 2
range of estimated future values for the various elements of the 3
enterprise and the changes in value drivers, user-specified or 4
system generated, that drove the future value estimate. Eder 46:46 5
– 47:8. 6
06. Eder checks the growth option definition table information to 7
determine if there are multiple scenarios for the growth option 8
being analyzed. If so then the user inputs the number of scenarios, 9
the name of the scenarios and the probability that each scenario 10
will occur for the growth option being valued, which are stored in 11
the growth option definition table in the application database. Eder 12
retrieves the information for the scenario from the growth option 13
scenario table. The forecast information the user provides is saved 14
to the growth option scenario table in the application database. If 15
Eder determines that there are still scenarios that don't have 16
"current" data, then the processing is repeated until all scenarios 17
have "current" data. When all scenarios for the growth option 18
being analyzed have "current" data, Eder calculates the total value 19
of revenue, expense, capital and element of value deductions for 20
each scenario and the weighted average forecast of total growth 21
option revenues, expenditures, capital and element of value 22
deductions for each period by multiplying the forecast revenue, 23
capital and element of value deductions for each scenario by the 24
probability of that scenario realization. Eder 35:13 – 37:20. 25
Appeal 2009-014248
Application 10/091,859

10
07. Eder’s Table 1 lists examples of enterprise elements used for 1
valuation. Examples include balance sheet items, employees, 2
vendor relationships, strategic relationships, brand names, and 3
general going concern value. Eder 5:39-6:10 4
Kramer 5
08. Kramer is directed to models of consumers, based upon 6
transactional data extracted from structured information received 7
via electronic channels and viewed by the consumer, and the use 8
of those models to aid in presenting targeted content, such as 9
advertising or special offers, in a way that does not compromise 10
the consumer's privacy. Kramer 1:15-21. 11
09. Kramer describes using report metadata as a technique for 12
entering model data. Kramer 5:46-55. 13
Huang 14
10. Huang is directed to supporting management decisions with 15
manufacturing of service supply chains that allows the various 16
decision makers in the supply chain to view the supply chain from 17
their own perspective, obtain information and evaluate decisions 18
concerning past, current and future performance with respect to a 19
diverse set of often conflicting goals. Huang is designed to 20
support managers in understanding the effect of the various 21
decisions that can be made on a supply chain as a whole both 22
currently and into the near future. Huang 1:18-49. 23
24
Appeal 2009-014248
Application 10/091,859

11
Kim 1
11. Kim is directed to automating a business process. Kim ¶ 0002. 2
12. Kim describes using XML as the format for storing model data. 3
Kim ¶ 0182. 4
Steinman 5
13. Steinman is directed to using priority queues in simulation 6
systems. Steinman 1:12-16. 7
Eicher 8
14. Eicher is directed to service supply chains that notify key 9
personnel when key performance measures are violated. Eicher ¶ 10
0002. 11
15. Eicher monitors business relationship health through 12
monitoring standard business documents that are exchanged 13
between partners and automatically extracting data that provides 14
insight into that business relationship. Eicher ¶ 0011. 15
16. Eicher is evidence that one can predict and recommend courses 16
of action based on pattern recognition technologies and analytical 17
approaches including statistical algorithms, complex adaptive 18
systems, and other non-linear analytical techniques. Eicher 0137. 19
Ball 20
17. Ball is directed to agent or character based user interfaces. Ball 21
1:10-19. 22
Appeal 2009-014248
Application 10/091,859

12
18. Ball is evidence that Bayesian inference techniques are 1
applicable to compound conditional probabilities. Ball 2:30-57. 2
Watanabe 3
19. Watanabe is directed to simulating transaction communications 4
between clients and servers. Watanabe 1:8-14. 5
20. Watanabe is evidence that simulations may be run in real time 6
when the output is needed in real time. Watanabe 3:41-47. 7
El Ata 8
21. El Ata is directed to the use of feedback in predictive systems. 9
El Ata 1:14-24. 10
22. El Ata describes the utility of feedback to support various levels 11
of abstraction and “what if” analysis in business models. El Ata 12
3:25-44. 13
ANALYSIS 14
Claim 18 rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 112, second paragraph, as failing to 15
particularly point out and distinctly claim the invention. 16
This rejection is summarily affirmed because the Appellant does not 17
contest it. 18
Claims 64-68, 73-81, 89-90, 99-110, 112-116, and 119-121 rejected under 19
35 U.S.C. § 102(e) as anticipated by Eder. 20
Each of independent method claims 64, 106, and 115 construct models 21
and scenarios and use scenario parameters, strategies, and specifications, 22
while populating a database to simulate strategies and scenarios to output 23
Appeal 2009-014248
Application 10/091,859

13
results. Independent claims 104, 105, 113, 114, 120, and 121 are system and 1
code in memory analogs of the method claims. As these claims essentially 2
recite business modeling in general and being used to run simulations in 3
particular, the Examiner found that Eder’s models that ran such simulations 4
anticipated the claims. Ans. 6-8; 12-13; and 15. See FF 01 - 06. The 5
Appellant argues for each of these claims that Eder only uses a single 6
scenario. Appeal Br. 16-23. 7
The Examiner responds that Eder describes multiple scenarios. Ans. 27-8
29. The Examiner also responds that in claim 64, step (a) constructs a single 9
model whose purpose may be to create plural scenarios, but whose phrasing 10
does not actually contain a limitation of creating such plural scenarios. 11
Similarly, although the predefined model that is received may be from 12
among plural such models, step (a) does not require selecting from among 13
such plural models. Ans. 27-28. We agree with the Examiner that Eder 14
describes using multiple scenarios. FF 06. This implies the use of multiple 15
domains and models, as each scenario defines a domain and model. We also 16
agree with the Examiner that claim 64 does not require plural scenarios, 17
domains, and models, but merely the capacity for a selection to have been 18
from plural such models, domains, and scenarios. Since a user is free to 19
select any abstraction such as a model, domain, or scenario, such capacity is 20
inherent in any modeling routine as with Eder. Further, Eder’s plural 21
scenarios imply plural models and domains for the same reason. 22
The Appellant relies on essentially the same argument for claims 67, 73, 23
and 74. Ans. 26-28. 24
Appeal 2009-014248
Application 10/091,859

14
The Appellant argues that Eder fails to describe the dynamic behavior 1
data representing change or interaction in claim 65, limitation (3). Appeal 2
Br. 24. The Examiner found this in the changes in Eder’s enterprise 3
elements entity data. Ans. 30. We agree with the Examiner that claim 65 4
merely requires that the data have the capacity to somehow represent change 5
over time and interact with each other. Changes in balance sheet items, 6
employees, brands, and strategic relationships would represent both changes 7
over time and interaction. The Appellant contends the Specification narrows 8
the limitation of claim 65, but limitations from the Specification are not 9
drawn into the claims. 10
The Appellant next argues claim 74, on the basis that Eder fails to 11
describe user specified parameters. The Appellant also repeats the argument 12
regarding plural models and domains from claim 64. The Appellant 13
contends that Eder uses predefined parameters with user specified values. 14
Appeal Br. 28-31. The Appellant points to the variables listed in Eder’s 15
Table 1 for this contention. First, we find that these variables are generic 16
rather than specific, referring to balance sheet items generally that would 17
necessarily be populated by the specific user defined balance sheet accounts 18
in use by the user. Second, we find that the phrase “user-specified scenario 19
parameters” encompasses predefined parameters whose values are user 20
specified because the phrase does not limit that manner or degree of user 21
specification. 22
The Appellant next argues claims 75-79, 101, and 103 on the basis that 23
Eder fails to describe a baseline and alternate scenarios. The Appellant also 24
repeats the argument regarding plural domains from claim 64. The 25
Examiner found that these arguments were similar to those in support of 26
Appeal 2009-014248
Application 10/091,859

15
claim 64. Ans. 32. We agree with the Examiner that Eder describes plural 1
scenarios, any of which could be considered a baseline, as a baseline is 2
simply a perceptual reference. FF 06. 3
The Appellant next argues claims 100, on the basis that Eder fails to 4
describe graphic time series and histogram charts of scenario attributes. The 5
Appellant also repeats the argument regarding plural models from claim 64. 6
Appeal Br. 38-40. The Examiner responds that claim 100 contains an 7
alternative limitation, in that only one of limitations (i) and (ii) is required. 8
Ans. 33. We agree with the Examiner that claim 100 has such an alternative 9
limitation. The Appellant does not contend that the remaining limitation of 10
tabular reports is not described. 11
The Appellant next argues claims 102, 116, 119, on the basis that Eder 12
fails to describe an intervention that is a strategy, plan, investment, or other 13
proposed course of action. Appeal Br. 41-42. The Examiner responded that 14
Eder describes simulating the effect of changes in value drivers, which 15
would effectively test intervention of a strategy that would cause such 16
changes. Ans. 34. We agree with the Examiner that Eder describes altering 17
such value drivers. FF 05. These claims only require influencing a scenario 18
in a desired manner, without specifying how influence is attained. The 19
claims recite examples, including a proposed course of action, which would 20
ultimately result in the influence, but any change in Eder’s scenario tables 21
would implicitly be due to some proposed course of action, particularly 22
changes resulting from a goal seeking mode described by Eder. 23
The Appellant next argues claim 110, on the basis that Eder fails to 24
describe an application specific decision model. Appeal Br. 43-44. The 25
Appeal 2009-014248
Application 10/091,859

16
Examiner responded that Eder’s decision model is specifically designed for 1
the application. Ans. 35. We agree with the Examiner that Eder’s decision 2
model is designed to simulate operations with Eder’s specific application. 3
As the claim does not specify the nature of being application specific, Eder’s 4
decision model is within the scope of the claimed application specific model. 5
The remaining claims in this rejection are not separately argued. 6
Claims 69 and 70 rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over 7
Eder and Honarvar. 8
Claim 70 recites that attributes are permitted to assume values of any 9
one or more of the following data types: integer or real numbers, symbols, 10
lists, tables, vectors, relationships, interval ranges, free text, and Boolean 11
descriptors. The Appellant argues this means the art must describe all of the 12
enumerated data types. Appeal Br. 48-49. The Examiner responds that 13
claim 70 contains an alternative limitation, in that only one of the 14
enumerated data types is required. Ans. 36-37. We agree with the 15
Examiner that claim 70 has such an alternative limitation. This rejection as 16
applied to claim 69 is summarily affirmed because the Appellant does not 17
contest it. 18
Claims 71, 72, and 111 rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable 19
over Eder and Kramer. 20
These claims recite the use of metadata for the claimed business models. 21
The Appellant argues that Kramer is non-analogous art. Appeal Br. 49-51. 22
The Examiner responds that both Eder and Kramer are oriented toward 23
Appeal 2009-014248
Application 10/091,859

17
modeling of business processes. Ans. 37. Kramer describes how such 1
metadata can be used to enter modeling data. FF 09. Clearly entering such 2
data is equally pertinent to Eder, and so Kramer is analogous art. 3
The Appellant also argues that the art fails to recite an automated code 4
generator as in claim 111. Appeal Br. 50. The Examiner responds that 5
Eder’s creation of database output necessarily results from generated 6
database queries. Ans. 38. While the use of SQL (Structured Query 7
Language) code or the like is not necessarily absolutely necessary, we agree 8
with the Examiner that one of ordinary skill would have known such a 9
technique was among the more readily performed by virtue of such SQL 10
capacity in most database management systems, and so would have been 11
both predictable and within the skill of such a practitioner. The claim does 12
not further narrow the particular type of code or where in the process such 13
code is generated, so standard SQL queries generated to produce Eder’s 14
database output would have been within the scope of the claims. 15
Claim 82 rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Eder and 16
Huang. 17
Claim 82 recites permitting user entry of one or more scenario 18
parameters and candidate decision parameters by means of one or more 19
graphically-displayed controls. The Appellant repeats the argument 20
regarding alternative scenario parameters with respect to claims 75-79, 101, 21
103, which is equally unpersuasive here. The Appellant also argues that 22
Huang is not analogous to Eder. Appeal Br. 51. As with Kramer and Eder, 23
Huang describes techniques for modeling business data. FF 10. While 24
Huang describes a more narrow form of business in service supply chains 25
Appeal 2009-014248
Application 10/091,859

18
and inventory, these forms of business are clearly within the generic forms 1
modeled with Eder, and so Huang is analogous art. 2
Claims 83-85, 87, and 117 rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as 3
unpatentable over Eder. 4
Claim 117 recites the optimal strategy is a strategy that displays superior 5
values of performance metrics across the plurality of alternative scenarios. 6
The Appellant repeats the argument regarding alternative scenario 7
parameters with respect to claims 75-79, 101, 103, which is equally 8
unpersuasive here. Appeal Br. 52. 9
This rejection as applied to claims 83-85 and 87 is summarily affirmed 10
because the Appellant does not contest it. 11
Claim 86 rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Eder and 12
Kim. 13
Claim 86 recites a common data exchange format that is a comma- 14
delimited spreadsheet export format (CSV) or an extensible markup 15
language (XML) document format. The Appellant argues Kim is non-16
analogous art. Appeal Br. 53. As with Kramer, Huang, and Eder, Kim 17
describes techniques for modeling business data. FF 11. Thus, Kim is 18
analogous art. Further, Kim merely provides evidence that XML was known 19
to those of ordinary skill to be a common data exchange format, as it was an 20
industry standard. As such, Kim is merely evidence that those of ordinary 21
skill knew it was predictable to use XML with reports and data in Eder. 22
23
Appeal 2009-014248
Application 10/091,859

19
Claims 88 and 93 rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over 1
Eder and Steinman. 2
These claims recite applying a parallel discrete-event simulation 3
technique and an event-based simulation technique. The Appellant repeats 4
the argument regarding alternative scenario parameters with respect to 5
claims 75-79, 101, 103, which is equally unpersuasive here. The Appellant 6
also argues one of ordinary skill would not have looked to Steinman for 7
simulation techniques for a financial application as in Eder. Appeal Br. 53-8
54. We disagree with the Appellant because Eder explicitly recites 9
performing detailed simulations for businesses in new industries. FF 02. 10
Since business is essentially a series of events, the use of Steinman’s event 11
priority queues would be pertinent to Eder’s simulations. FF 13. 12
Claims 91, 95, and 96 rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable 13
over Eder and Bonabeau. 14
This rejection is summarily affirmed because the Appellant does not 15
contest it. 16
Claim 92 rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Eder and 17
Eicher. 18
Claim 92 recites applying a complex adaptive system or distributed 19
agent simulation technique. The Appellant repeats the argument regarding 20
alternative scenario parameters with respect to claims 75-79, 101, 103, 21
which is equally unpersuasive here. The Appellant also argues that Eder 22
would not be combined with Eicher because Eicher deals with supply-chain 23
management. Appeal Br. 55-56. 24
Appeal 2009-014248
Application 10/091,859

20
We disagree with the Appellant because, as with Huang supra, Eicher 1
describes techniques for modeling business data by monitoring business 2
relationship health through monitoring standard business documents that are 3
exchanged between partners and automatically extracting data that provides 4
insight into that business relationship. FF 15. While Huang describes a 5
more narrow form of business in service supply chains and inventory, these 6
forms of business are clearly within the generic forms modeled with Eder, 7
and so Eicher is analogous art. In any event, the Examiner relied on Eicher 8
for no more than evidence that one can predict and recommend courses of 9
action based on pattern recognition technologies and analytical approaches 10
including statistical algorithms, complex adaptive systems, and other non-11
linear analytical techniques. FF 16. Such recommendations would be of 12
particular known use to Eder’s models. 13
Claim 94 rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Eder and 14
Ball. 15
Claim 94 recites using a Bayesian inference technique to compound 16
conditional probabilities. The Appellant repeats the argument regarding 17
alternative scenario parameters with respect to claims 75-79, 101, 103, 18
which is equally unpersuasive here. The Appellant also argues that Eder 19
would not be combined with Ball because Ball deals with computer 20
interfaces. Appeal Br. 56-57. 21
We disagree with the Appellant. Ball is directed to the art of user 22
interfaces for computer systems, which are clearly required by Eder. FF 17. 23
Thus, Ball describes implementation techniques that would be applicable to 24
Eder. Further, Ball is no more than evidence that one of ordinary skill knew 25
Appeal 2009-014248
Application 10/091,859

21
the applicability of Bayesian inference techniques to compound conditional 1
probabilities. FF 18. 2
Claim 97 rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Eder and 3
Watanabe. 4
Claim 97 recites permitting a user to monitor the progress of the 5
simulation in real time. The Appellant repeats the argument regarding 6
alternative scenario parameters with respect to claims 75-79, 101, 103, 7
which is equally unpersuasive here. The Appellant also argues that Eder 8
would not be combined with Watanabe because Watanabe deals with 9
simulating a computer network. Appeal Br. 57-58. 10
We disagree with the Appellant. Watanabe is directed to the art of 11
simulating transaction communications for computer systems. FF 19. Thus, 12
Watanabe describes simulation implementation techniques that would be 13
applicable to Eder. Further, Watanabe is no more than evidence that one of 14
ordinary skill knew that simulations may be run in real time when the output 15
is needed in real time. FF 20. 16
Claim 98 rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Eder and 17
Clarisse. 18
This rejection is summarily affirmed because the Appellant does not 19
contest it. 20
Claim 118 rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Eder and 21
El Ata. 22
Claim 118 recites (e) changing and refining the plurality of strategies 23
based on comparisons of the strategies and the projected outcomes of the 24
Appeal 2009-014248
Application 10/091,859

22
strategies; (f) updating the alternative scenarios based on the simulated 1
outcome of the selected optimal strategy; and (g) simulating results of each 2
of an updated plurality of strategies based on the updated alternative 3
scenarios. The Appellant repeats the argument regarding alternative scenario 4
parameters with respect to claims 75-79, 101, 103, which is equally 5
unpersuasive here. The Appellant also argues that Eder would not be 6
combined with El Ata because El Ata deals with design of optimal 7
architectures. Appeal Br. 58-59. 8
We disagree with the Appellant. El Ata is directed to the art of 9
predictive systems as with Eder. FF 21. Thus, El Ata describes predictive 10
implementation techniques that would be applicable to Eder. The Appellant 11
also argues that El Ata’s feedback loop does not perform the steps in claim 12
118. We disagree with the Appellant. El Ata describes the utility of 13
feedback to support various levels of abstraction and “what if” analysis in 14
business models. FF 22. The steps in claim 118 are no more than iterative 15
operation of Eder’s simulation. El Ata’s feedback for plural simulations 16
implies such iterations. 17
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW 18
Rejecting claim 18 under 35 U.S.C. § 112, second paragraph, as failing 19
to particularly point out and distinctly claim the invention is proper. 20
Rejecting claims 64-68, 73-81, 89-90, 99-110, 112-116, and 119-121 21
under 35 U.S.C. § 102(e) as anticipated by Eder is proper. 22
Rejecting claims 69 and 70 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable 23
over Eder and Honarvar is proper. 24
Appeal 2009-014248
Application 10/091,859

23
Rejecting claims 71, 72, and 111 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as 1
unpatentable over Eder and Kramer is proper. 2
Rejecting claim 82 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Eder 3
and Huang is proper. 4
Rejecting claims 83-85, 87, and 117 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as 5
unpatentable over Eder is proper. 6
Rejecting claim 86 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Eder 7
and Kim is proper. 8
Rejecting claims 88 and 93 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable 9
over Eder and Steinman is proper. 10
Rejecting claims 91, 95, and 96 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as 11
unpatentable over Eder and Bonabeau is proper. 12
Rejecting claim 92 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Eder 13
and Eicher is proper. 14
Rejecting claim 94 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Eder 15
and Ball is proper. 16
Rejecting claim 97 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Eder 17
and Watanabe is proper. 18
Rejecting claim 98 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Eder 19
and Clarisse is proper. 20
Rejecting claim 118 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Eder 21
and El Ata is proper. 22
Appeal 2009-014248
Application 10/091,859

24
DECISION 1
To summarize, our decision is as follows. 2
• The rejection of claim 18 under 35 U.S.C. § 112, second paragraph, as 3
failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the invention is 4
sustained. 5
• The rejection of claims 64-68, 73-81, 89-90, 99-110, 112-116, and 6
119-121 under 35 U.S.C. § 102(e) as anticipated by Eder is sustained. 7
• The rejection of claims 69 and 70 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as 8
unpatentable over Eder and Honarvar is sustained. 9
• The rejection of claims 71, 72, and 111 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as 10
unpatentable over Eder and Kramer is sustained. 11
• The rejection of claim 82 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable 12
over Eder and Huang is sustained. 13
• The rejection of claims 83-85, 87, and 117 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) 14
as unpatentable over Eder is sustained. 15
• The rejection of claim 86 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable 16
over Eder and Kim is sustained. 17
• The rejection of claims 88 and 93 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as 18
unpatentable over Eder and Steinman is sustained. 19
• The rejection of claims 91, 95, and 96 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as 20
unpatentable over Eder and Bonabeau is sustained. 21
• The rejection of claim 92 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable 22
over Eder and Eicher is sustained. 23
Appeal 2009-014248
Application 10/091,859

25
• The rejection of claim 94 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable 1
over Eder and Ball is sustained. 2
• The rejection of claim 97 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable 3
over Eder and Watanabe is sustained. 4
• The rejection of claim 98 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable 5
over Eder and Clarisse is sustained. 6
• The rejection of claim 118 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable 7
over Eder and El Ata is sustained. 8
No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with this 9
appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a). See 37 C.F.R. 10
§ 1.136(a)(1)(iv) (2007). 11
12
AFFIRMED 13
14
15
16
mev 17
18
Address 19
MENDELSOHN, DRUCKER, & ASSOCIATES, P.C. 20
1500 JOHN F. KENNEDY BLVD., SUITE 405 21
PHILADELPHIA PA 19102 22