Ex Parte Farooq et alDownload PDFPatent Trial and Appeal BoardFeb 16, 201612019004 (P.T.A.B. Feb. 16, 2016) Copy Citation 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 Copy with citationCopy as parenthetical citation