Ex Parte Farooq et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Feb 16, 2016

12019004 (P.T.A.B. Feb. 16, 2016)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE
12/019,004 01124/2008
26201 7590 02/18/2016
FISH & RICHARDSON P,C (AU)
P.O BOX 1022
Minneapolis, MN 55440-1022
FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
Mohammed Farooq
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
ATTORNEY DOCKET NO. CONFIRMATION NO.
23429-002001 9234
EXAMINER
YOUNG, ASHLEY YA-SHEH
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
3623
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
02/18/2016 ELECTRONIC
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.
Notice of the Office communication was sent electronically on above-indicated "Notification Date" to the
following e-mail address( es):
P ATDOCTC@fr.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte MOHAMMED F AROOQ, RAGHUNATH SAPURAM,
MANISH MODH, and ROBERT ERICKSON
Appeal2013-005004 1
Application 12/019,0042
Technology Center 3600
Before HUBERT C. LORIN, BIBHU R. MOHANTY, and
TARA L. HUTCHINGS, Administrative Patent Judges.
HUTCHINGS, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Appellants appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Examiner's final
rejection of claims 1--40. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b ).
We REVERSE.
1 Our decision references Appellants' Appeal Brief ("Br.," filed Nov. 5,
2012), and the Examiner's Answer ("Ans.," mailed Dec. 5, 2012).
2 Appellants identify ShearDigital, Inc., as the real party in interest. Br. 2.
Appeal2013-005004
Application 12/019,004
CLAIMED fNVENTION
Appellants' claimed invention "relates to methods and systems for
developing, implementing, transforming, and governing a business model of
an enterprise." Spec. 1 :4--5.
Independent claim 1, reproduced below with added bracketed
notations, is representative of the subject matter on appeal:
1. A method of implementing and managing an
enterprise-level business model of an enterprise, the method
compnsmg:
[ (a)] defining the enterprise-level business model using a
business model tool that is executed by a computer, wherein the
enterprise-level business model comprises an enterprise
component, a customer component and a partner component and
provides a structure of services within the enterprise defining
relationships with customers, partners and vendors, the
enterprise component comprising one or more business
components that provide business services and that are
associated with business processes and service performance
indicators (SPis ), the enterprise-level business model being
defined based on interrelated business strategy, business goal and
business constraint data, wherein the business strategy comprises
one or more strategic intents that provide one or more strategic
goals to be achieved by the enterprise;
[ (b)] defining, for each of the one or more strategic goals,
one or more strategic objectives, with each objective providing a
quantifiable target for achieving a respective strategic goal;
[ ( c)] inputting into the computer a first set of data
representing a benchmark performance value of a business
service, the benchmark performance value linking the business
service to the one or more strategic objectives;
[ ( d)] monitoring metrics of the enterprise at a service level
to determine an actual performance value of the business service,
the actual performance value being based on the SPis and key
performance indicators (KPis) relating to the business strategy
and objectives, the metrics indicating compliance with one or
more service level agreements (SLAs) between the enterprise
2
Appeal2013-005004
Application 12/019,004
and at least one of the customers, partners and vendors as a result
of operation of the enterprise in accordance with the enterprise-
level business model;
[ ( e)] processing the actual performance value and the
benchmark performance value in the computer to affect a
comparison therebetween; and
[ ( t)] modifying the enterprise-level business model based
on the comparison, wherein modifying is achieved by modifying
a relationship between one or more components of the enterprise-
level business model.
REJECTIONS
Claims 1-5, 8-13, 15-20, 23-28, 30-34, and 37--40 are rejected under
35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Yeung (US 2005/0165822 Al, pub.
July 28, 2005), Giancola (US 2006/0184408 Al, pub. Aug. 17, 2006), and
Zpevak (US 2008/0010293 Al, pub. Jan. 10, 2008).
Claims 6, 7, 21, 22, 35, and 36 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a)
as unpatentable over Yeung, Giancola, Zpevak, and Bhaskaran
(US 2005/0091093 Al, pub. Apr. 28, 2005).
Claims 14 and 29 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
unpatentable over Yeung, Giancola, Zpevak, and Chowdhary
(US 2007/0244738 Al, pub. Oct. 18, 2007).
ANALYSIS
Independent claim 1 and dependent claims 2-5 and 8-13
We are persuaded by Appellant's argument that the Examiner erred in
rejecting independent claim 1 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) because the
combination of Yeung and Giancola does not disclose or suggest an
enterprise-level business model, i.e., limitation (a), as recited in claim 1.
3
Appeal2013-005004
Application 12/019,004
Br. 13-15. The Examiner relies on a combination of Yeung and Zpevak for
disclosing limitation, as recited in claim 1. Ans. 2-8.
In rejecting claim 1, the Examiner finds that Yeung discloses defining
a business model tool that is executed by a computer, wherein the business
model is based on interrelated business strategy, business goal and business
constraint data, and wherein the business strategy comprises one or more
strategic intents that provide one or more strategic goals to be achieved by
the enterprise. Ans. 2-3 (citing Yeung, i-fi-128, 31, 34). The Examiner
acknowledges that Yeung' s business model tool does not comprise an
enterprise component, a customer component and a partner component, or
provide a structure of services within the enterprise defining relationships
with customers, partners and vendors, the enterprise component comprising
one or more business components that provide business services and that are
associated with business processes and service performance indicators
(SPis), the enterprise-level business model being defined based on
interrelated business strategy, business goal and business constraint data.
See id. at 4. And the Examiner relies on Zpevak to cure the deficiency. Id.
at 6-8.
Zpevak describes a Service Level Agreement Tracking Engine
("SLATE") for managing a service level agreement ("SLA") with suppliers.
Zpevak i-f 13. Legal contracts between a customer and a supplier typically
include an SLA with terms defining acceptable performance in the delivery
of services. Id. An SLA database includes one or more modules configured
to store records related to SLA terms and parameters, such as an SLA trigger
associated with an SLA term, a SLA desired outcome parameter, and an
SLA comparator parameter. Id. i-f 15. The SLA desired outcome parameter
4
Appeal2013-005004
Application 12/019,004
includes a determined level, number or quality of the SLA term desired,
such as defects per million, number of code lines or response time. Id. A
supplier interface system includes an SLA tracking system with a supplier
interface that accepts customer input from a supplier graphical user
interface, transmits supplier input to a processor, and transmits SLA
outcome records and other data to the supplier graphical user interface. Id.
at i121.
The Examiner finds that Zpevak at paragraphs 13, 15, and 21, teaches
a service level agreement tracking system, wherein the enterprise-level
business model comprises an enterprise component, a customer component
and a partner component and provides a structure of services within the
enterprise defining relationships with customers, partners and vendors, the
enterprise component comprising one or more business components that
provide business services and that are associated with business processes
and service performance indicators (SPis ). Ans. 6-8.
However, we agree with Appellants (Br. 14--15) that Zpevak' s SLA
tracking engine does not constitute an enterprise-level business model, let
alone an enterprise-level business model comprising an enterprise
component, a customer component and a partner component, as recited in
claim 1. Rather, Zpevak discloses a tracking system that includes a database
configured to store records, a graphical user interface adapted to receive
SLA data, a process, storage, and an input module. Zpevak, i-f 14.
The Examiner reasons that it would have been obvious to modify
Yeung' s business process optimization method "to include the systems of
Zpevak for the purpose of comparing SLA performance across different
contracts, projects, and different suppliers." Ans. 7-8 (citing Zpevak i-f 13).
5
Appeal2013-005004
Application 12/019,004
But we fail to see how, and the Examiner does not adequately explain how,
one of ordinary skill in the art would have had reason to modify Yeung' s
business process model to include an enterprise component, a customer
component and a partner component, and to provide a structure of services
within the enterprise defining relationships with customers, partners and
vendors, wherein the enterprise component comprises one or more business
components that provide business services and that are associated with
business processes and service performance indicators (SPis ), as called for
in claim 1, in view of Zpevak' s disclosure of an SLA tracking engine.
The Examiner's analysis is insufficient to show that claim 1 is
unpatentable in view of the cited references without further explanation.
Therefore, based on the present record, we do not sustain the Examiner's
rejection under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) of independent claim 1, and claims 2-5
and 8-13, which depend therefrom.
Independent claims 15 and 30, and dependent claims 16-20, 23-28, 31-34,
and 37-40
Independent claims 15 and 30 include language substantially similar
to the language of claim 1. Therefore, we do not sustain the Examiner's
rejection under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) of independent claims 15 and 30, and
claims 16-20, 23-28, 31-34, and 37--40 that depend from the independent
claims, for the same reasons set forth above with respect to claim 1.
Dependent claims 6, 7, 21, 22, 35, and 36
Claims 6, 7, 21, 22, 35, and 36 each ultimately depends from one of
independent claim 1, 15, and 30. The Examiner's rejection of claims 6, 7,
21, 22, 3 5, and 3 6 based on Bhaskaran, in combination with Yeung,
Giancola, and Zpevak, does not cure the deficiency in the Examiner's
6
Appeal2013-005004
Application 12/019,004
rejection of claims 1, 15, and 30. Therefore, we do not sustain the
Examiner's rejection of claims 6, 7, 21, 22, 35, and 36 under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a).
Dependent claims 14 and 29
Claims 14 and 29 depend from independent claim 1 and 15,
respectively. The Examiner's rejection of claims 14 and 29 based on
Chowdhary, in combination with Yeung, Giancola, and Zpevak, does not
cure the deficiency in the Examiner's rejection of claims 1 and 15.
Therefore, we do not sustain the Examiner's rejection of claims 14 and 29
under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a).
DECISION
The Examiner's rejections of claims 1--40 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a)
are reversed.
REVERSED
7