10397823 (B.P.A.I. Dec. 28, 2010)

Ex Parte Barazesh

Board of Patent Appeals and InterferencesDec 28, 2010

10397823 (B.P.A.I. Dec. 28, 2010)

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. 10/397,823 03/26/2003 Reza Barazesh 384.7760USU 8715 7590 12/28/2010 Paul D. Greeley, Esq. Ohlandt, Greeley, Ruggiero & Perle, L.L.P. 10th Floor One Landmark Square Stamford, CT 06901-2682 EXAMINER FELTEN, DANIEL S ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 3693 MAIL DATE DELIVERY MODE 12/28/2010 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 BOARD OF PATENT APPEALS AND INTERFERENCES ____________ Ex parte REZA BARAZESH ____________ Appeal 2010-005149 Application 10/397,823 Technology Center 3600 ____________ Before MURRIEL E. CRAWFORD, HUBERT C. LORIN, and ANTON W. FETTING, Administrative Patent Judges. LORIN, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL1 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. STATEMENT OF THE CASE Reza Barazesh (Appellant) seeks our review under 35 U.S.C. § 134 (2002) of the final rejection of claims 1-12. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b) (2002). SUMMARY OF DECISION We AFFIRM.2 THE INVENTION The invention relates to providing business information. Specification 1:8-9. Claim 1, reproduced below, is illustrative of the subject matter on appeal. 1. A method of providing a score for an entity, comprising: computing a base from a plurality of local country failure risk scores for said entity, wherein each local country failure risk score corresponds to one country of a plurality of included countries; mapping said base to global failure risk scores based on a probability of failure; translating said global failure risk scores to a single globally standardized score; and providing said globally standardized score. 2 Our decision will make reference to the Appellant’s Appeal Brief (“Br.,” filed May 27, 2009) and the Examiner’s Answer (“Answer,” mailed Sep. 16, 2009). Appeal 2010-005149 Application 10/397,823 3 THE REJECTION The Examiner relies upon the following as evidence of unpatentability: Oracle © Trading Community Architecture, D&B for Oracle Applications, User Guide, Release 11i, February, 2002, Part No. A97628-01. [D&B] “Official Notice is taken of using a raw score because an artisan would recognize the raw score is essentially the original datum that is before it is transformed into a standard score (or in this case a Global Failure Risk score etc.).” Answer 4. [Official Notice] The following rejection is before us for review: 1. Claims 1-12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. §103(a) as being unpatentable over D&B [Official Notice was additionally relied upon in rejecting claims 10-12. See Answer 4] ARGUMENTS The Examiner found that D&B discloses all claimed subject matter for providing a globally standardized score. Answer 3. The Appellant disagrees because “[a]lthough D&B discloses the existence of a Global Failure Score, it fails to disclose how the score is calculated.” Br. 8. ISSUES Did the Examiner err in relying on D&B on the ground that D&B does not disclose how the Global Failure Score is calculated? Appeal 2010-005149 Application 10/397,823 4 FINDINGS OF FACT We rely on the Examiner’s factual findings stated in the Answer. Additional findings of fact may appear in the Analysis below. ANALYSIS The Examiner explained that D&B discloses how the Global Failure Score is calculated at page 1-4. Answer 3. Notwithstanding that the Appellant has not disputed the Examiner’s characterization of what D&B discloses at pages 1-4, we find in agreement with the Examiner that D&B in fact does disclose how the Global Failure Score is calculated at pages 1-4 under the heading “Global Failure Risk Score.” We reproduce it below. The “Global Failure Risk Score” is calculated by statistically deriving a single, uniform measure that predicts the risk of business failure over a 12- month period and which will help one assess the risk of business failure when dealing with global companies and managing the customer accounts in one’s global credit portfolios. The Appellant further argues, without elaboration, that D&B does not disclose the computing, mapping, and translating steps the claimed invention uses in making the calculation. However, the lack of specific teachings is not determinative of the question of obviousness. The question is whether one of ordinary skill in the art given D&B’s broad disclosure of how the Appeal 2010-005149 Application 10/397,823 5 “Global Failure Risk Score” is calculated would have been led to do so by computing, mapping, and translating as claimed. In evaluating such references it is proper to take into account not only the specific teachings of the references but also the inferences which one skilled in the art would reasonably be expected to draw therefrom. In re Preda, 401 F.2d 825, 826 (CCPA 1968). In light of the Appellant’s argument, we find no error in the prima facie case of obviousness. The arguments challenging the rejection of claims 2-12 rest on the arguments challenging claim 1. See Br. 9. The Appellant does separately argue claims 2 and 3 but the arguments simply repeat what is claimed and conclude that D&B does not disclose what is claimed. Since the arguments challenging the rejection of claim 1 were found unpersuasive as to error in the prima facie case of obviousness and, with respect to claims 2 and 3, lack specificity, the rejection of claims 2-12 will be sustained. DECISION The decision of the Examiner to reject claims 1-12 is affirmed. AFFIRMED mev Appeal 2010-005149 Application 10/397,823 6 PAUL D. GREELEY, ESQ. OHLANDT, GREELEY, RUGGIERO & PERLE, L.L.P. ONE LANDMARK SQUARE, 10TH FLOOR STAMFORD CT 06901-2682