Ex Parte Degbotse et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Oct 16, 2014

10907843 (P.T.A.B. Oct. 16, 2014)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
___________

BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
___________

Ex parte ALFRED DEGBOTSE, BRIAN T. DENTON,
ROBERT J. MILNE, ROBERT E. RICE,
and JAMES W. WAITE
___________

Appeal 2012–000511
Application 10/907,843
Technology Center 3600
___________

Before HUBERT C. LORIN, ANTON W. FETTING, and
JOSEPH A. FISCHETTI, Administrative Patent Judges.

FETTING, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL

STATEMENT OF THE CASE1
Alfred Degbotse, Brian T. Denton, Robert J. Milne, Robert E. Rice,
and James W. Waite (Appellants) seek review under 35 U.S.C. § 134 of a
final rejection of claims 1–31, the only claims pending in the application on
appeal. We have jurisdiction over the appeal pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).

1 Our decision will make reference to the Appellants’ Appeal Brief (“App.
Br.,” filed February 24, 2011) and Reply Brief (“Reply Br.,” filed July 13,
2011), and the Examiner’s Answer (“Ans.,” mailed May 13, 2011).
Appeal 2012-000511
Application 10/907,843

2

The Appellants invented a way of using computer implementable decision
support systems for analyzing the output of a solution to a system of
equations (Specification para 3).
An understanding of the invention can be derived from a reading of
exemplary claim 1, which is reproduced below [bracketed matter and some
paragraphing added].
1. A computer–implemented method of
analyzing data output
from a computerized mathematical program,
said method comprising:
[1] using a computer,
establishing at least one rules table;
[2] using said computer,
identifying at least one dependent variable
to be searched
for each mathematical programming equation
in said rules table;
[3] using said computer,
obtaining output from said mathematical program,
wherein said output comprises output variables and their
values,
and
wherein at least one rule
in said rules table
is associated with one of said output
variables
and
each said rule comprises
a reference
to an equation or inequality
of said mathematical program;
[4] using said computer,
locating at least one rule
that is associated with an output variable
of said output variables
in said rules table;
Appeal 2012-000511
Application 10/907,843

3

[5] using said computer,
examining items
of said mathematical program
that are referenced in rules
identified by said locating process;
and
[6] using said computer,
reporting items
that contain at least one of
broken chains
or
that have a measure outside a predetermined limit
based on said examining process.

The Examiner relies upon the following prior art:
Natarajan US 4,866,628 Sep. 12, 1989
Dietrich US 5,548,518 Aug. 20, 1996
Dangat US 5,971,585 Oct. 26, 1999
MacKenzie US 2002/0065709 A1 May 30, 2002
Claims 1–31 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable
over MacKenzie, Dangat, Dietrich, and Natarajan.
ISSUES
The issues of obviousness turn primarily on whether the art applied
describe limitation [6] of reporting items that contain at least one of broken
chains or that have a measure outside a predetermined limit based on said
examining process.
Appeal 2012-000511
Application 10/907,843

4

FACTS PERTINENT TO THE ISSUES

The following enumerated Findings of Fact (FF) are believed to be
supported by a preponderance of the evidence.
Facts Related to the Prior Art
Mackenzie
01. Mackenzie is directed to analysis of employee surveys collected
from the employees of an organization. More specifically, the
invention provides a method for identifying and analyzing
probable causes of the survey results, and selecting variables for
effecting remedies in order to improve future results. MacKenzie
para 1.
02. MacKenzie describes using an Employee Opinion Survey
(EOS). First, interpreting the meaning of EOS results is difficult.
It is an exercise in ambiguity to interpret the meaning or
conclusions to be drawn from the results. This is due to a
potential host of possible “causes” that are thought to have
produced the results. Second, given the ambiguity of conclusions,
there is even more ambiguity involved in deciding on
recommendations for actions to improve the results. Third, the
items are inherently limited in their incorporation of context,
situation, involvement, and expertise. MacKenzie para 3 and 8.
03. MacKenzie uses the metaphor of ‘knobs’ on an old–fashioned
radio. If the radio is playing a station and the listener is unhappy
with what is being received, he or she might wish to turn the
volume knob to alter the volume or the tuning knob to change the
station. Ideally, an EOS result is like a radio broadcasting a
Appeal 2012-000511
Application 10/907,843

5

program and the knob is an action the listener takes to change it.
Knowing which knob to turn and turning it appropriately is more
effective than randomly turning dials. The main problem is the
‘knoblessness’ of the usual EOS result. If the knobs were known,
then one could improve EOS results more reliably. A holistic
organization theory that provides a generic, ordered set of knobs
helps one to reach conclusions and recommendations. Given such
a theory, one can determine which knob or set of knobs is most
likely to affect an improvement in an EOS result. It is possible to
perform knobby analyses of ‘knobless’ survey items in order to
supplement and enhance the results from EOSs. Such ‘knobby’
analyses increase precision by linking those factors or processes
under the control of management (‘knobs’) with the results from
the knobless EOS. MacKenzie para 10.
04. A concept employed in holistic organization theory, called an
“Organizational Hologram,” defines a hierarchy of knobs whose
structures can be exploited in performing knobby analyses.
Twelve holonomic processes allow the derivation of six Desired
Organizational Characteristics or DOCs. MacKenzie para 56.
05. A linear programming model is run for the Organizational
Diagnostic Survey (ODS) data. The linear programming model is
an optimization method in which one mathematically computes
the values of how much each Key Implementing Process (KIP)
can be improved given a set of constraints. The constraints
incorporate known interdependencies. Each KIP is a process and
is knobby. Basically, the linear programming technique “twists”
Appeal 2012-000511
Application 10/907,843

6

each knob (KIP) to its limits to determine the optimal mix. Linear
programming results are used to inform the reaching of
recommendations and are possible because of the use of knobby
scales for each ODS item. MacKenzie para 81.
06. The results of the linear programming calculations accomplish
two things: (1) they identify, using the organization's own data,
the KIPs offering the greatest leverage for improvement; and (2)
they establish a limit to how much the organization can improve
in a single stage intervention. This second property is valuable in
establishing realistic expectations in what level of improvement is
possible given the current state of the organization. MacKenzie
para 94–96.
07. In principle, the stronger the linkage between a KIP process
under the control of management and the score on an EOS item,
the greater the efficacy of employing the KIP process to improve
the score. A simple measure of this linkage is the correlation
coefficient. Let rij denote the correlation coefficient between the
jth EOS item and the jth knob (KIP). The correlation coefficients
are used to make the following determinations. A causal chain is
said to exist for an EOS item if three conditions are met: (1) the
correlation between the DOC and the EOS item must be
statistically significant. If it is determined that this condition is
met, then the next condition is checked. Otherwise, the next EOS
item is selected. (2) the correlation between an HP constituent to
the DOC, and the EOS item must statistically significant. If it is
determined that this condition is met, then the next condition is
Appeal 2012-000511
Application 10/907,843

7

checked. (3) the correlation between the jth KIP, constituent to
the HP, and the EOS item must be statistically significant. If this
condition is met, then the list of KIPs is narrowed down by
eliminating all KIPs where it was determined that the causal chain
was broken, i.e., where at least one of the above three conditions
was not met. The remaining KIPs are tabulated for further
analysis. Finally, the jth KIP must be feasible. MacKenzie para
101–106.
08. Feasible knobs (KIPs) are selected for the client. The large
number of possible correlations between the knobs and the EOS
items can be reduced in practice by invoking two procedures: (1)
eliminate all knobs (KIPs) whose potential improvement value,
PIVj, is less than some predetermined threshold value, and (2)
eliminate all the remaining knobs (KIPs) for any EOS item whose
correlation coefficient is above some predetermined level of
statistical significance, i.e., whose correlation with an EOS item is
insignificant. MacKenzie para 108–110.
Dangat
09. Dangat is directed to planning resources and decision support
tools and, more particularly, to a tool in which core production
planning information is provided to a solver which generates a
best can do (BCD) match between assets and demands. Dangat
generates a BCD match between existing assets and demands
across multiple manufacturing facilities within boundaries
established by manufacturing specifications and process flows and
business policies to determine which demands can be met in what
Appeal 2012-000511
Application 10/907,843

8

time frame by microelectronics (wafer to card) or related (for
example disk drives) manufacturing and establishes a set of
actions or guidelines for manufacturing to incorporate into their
Manufacturing Execution System to insure the delivery
commitments are met in a timely fashion. Dangat 1:7–21.
10. In the implode processing loop block 603, the solver implodes
part numbers for a specified reverse low level code. That is, for
each part number, the assets against requested demand are
calculated. This step is executed for each reverse low level code
in order. In block 604, the tool identifies the order in which part
numbers and locations must be processed. Locations which ship
to other locations must process first. If part number substitutions
have been made by the MRP, sort order is altered to ensure that
within the same low level code part numbers that are substituting
for other part(s) are processed before the part number(s) for which
they are substituting. In block 605, all assets (inventory, receipts
(WIP), purchases) are gathered. Dangat 12:54–66.
ANALYSIS
We are not persuaded by the Appellants’ argument that the art applied
fails to describe limitation [6] of reporting items that contain at least one of
broken chains or that have a measure outside a predetermined limit based on
said examining process. App. Br. 10–14; Reply Br. 9–16.
As the Examiner found at Answer 22, MacKenzie both searches for
broken causal chains and for statistically insignificant results. FF 07 and 08.
Appeal 2012-000511
Application 10/907,843

9

Appellants contend that where a causal chain is broken in MacKenzie, the
associated KIP is eliminated and not tabulated for analysis. Reply Br. 15.
Limitation [6] only recites that the reporting be “based on said
examining process” with no narrowing of the manner or degree of such
basis. This examination in turn is set forth in limitation [5] as simply
examining items of said mathematical program that are referenced in rules
identified by said locating process. This step does not narrow the sequence,
scope, or manner for such examination beyond reciting that it acts upon the
items that are referenced in identified rules. MacKenzie’s reporting of
statistically insignificant values and broken causal links being found by
MacKenzie’s process necessarily occurs as a result of MacKenzie’s analysis,
which is a form of examination.
We will not reach the arguments presented for the first time in Reply
Brief 27–28 because (1) they were not presented to the Examiner prior to the
Answer, depriving the Examiner of an opportunity to respond, and (2) the
arguments for them simply recite the added limitations and allege they are
not found. This is insufficient to act as a separate argument under 37 C.F.R.
§ 41.37. As our reviewing court held,
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.
In re Lovin, 652 F.3d 1349, 1357 (Fed Cir 2011).
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
The rejection of claims 1–31 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable
over MacKenzie, Dangat, Dietrich, and Natarajan is proper.
Appeal 2012-000511
Application 10/907,843

10

DECISION
The rejection of claims 1–31 is affirmed.
No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with this
appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a). See 37 C.F.R.
§ 1.136(a)(1)(iv) (2011).

AFFIRMED

Klh