Ex Parte Koller et alDownload PDFPatent Trial and Appeal BoardApr 30, 201310135884 (P.T.A.B. Apr. 30, 2013) Copy Citation 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. 10/135,884 04/29/2002 Walter Koller 09282.0035-00 5450 60668 7590 04/30/2013 SAP / FINNEGAN, HENDERSON LLP 901 NEW YORK AVENUE, NW WASHINGTON, DC 20001-4413 EXAMINER LASTRA, DANIEL ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 3621 MAIL DATE DELIVERY MODE 04/30/2013 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 PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD ____________ Ex parte WALTER KOLLER, MATHIAS SCHOENECKER, and MAURICE HAGEN ____________ Appeal 2011-002482 Application 10/135,884 Technology Center 3600 ____________ Before MURRIEL E. CRAWFORD, HUBERT C. LORIN, and BIBHU R. MOHANTY, Administrative Patent Judges. CRAWFORD, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL Appeal 2011-002482 Application 10/135,884 2 STATEMENT OF THE CASE Appellants seek our review under 35 U.S.C. § 134 of the Examiner’s final decision rejecting claims 13, 16 to 21, 24 to 29, and 32 to 38. We have jurisdiction over the appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). We REVERSE. Claim 13 is illustrative: 13. A computer-implemented method of appraisal performed by a machine comprising a storage medium, the method comprising: defining goals for an organization and storing the goals in the storage medium; defining objectives for an individual based on the goals for the organization and storing the objectives in the storage medium; creating an appraisal sheet for the individual from an appraisal template electronically populated with the objectives for the individual; storing compensation guidelines associated with the objectives, the compensation guidelines including a plurality of compensation adjustments, each compensation adjustment being associated with at least one of the objectives; storing qualification components associated with the objectives; collecting appraisal scores for the individual for the objectives based on performance of the individual; updating a qualification profile of the individual based on the qualification components and the appraisal scores; electronically generating a scorecard including the goals for the organization, the objectives for the individual, and the appraisal scores for the individual; and calculating, using the machine, a compensation adjustment recommendation for the Appeal 2011-002482 Application 10/135,884 3 individual according to the appraisal scores and the compensation guidelines, wherein calculating comprises computing the compensation adjustment recommendation as a total of the compensation adjustments weighted according to the appraisal scores for each of the objectives. Appellants appeal the following rejection: Claims 13, 16 to 21, 24 to 29 and 32 to 38 under 35 U.S.C. § 102(e) as anticipated by Calderaro (US 2003/0004967 A1; pub. Jan. 2, 2003). ANALYSIS The Appellants argue that Calderaro does not disclose the step of storing compensation guidelines that include a plurality of compensation adjustments, each compensation adjustment being associated with at least one of the objectives. We agree. The Examiner directs our attention to paragraphs [0059], [0060], [0078] and [0085] of Calderaro for teaching this subject matter. These portions of Calderaro discuss making changes in compensation for employees based on factors such as skills, experiences, contribution, and risk. The Examiner may be correct that contributions can be considered objectives as broadly claimed. However, there is no disclosure of a guideline with a plurality of compensation adjustments which are each associated with at least one objective. . In view of the foregoing, we will not sustain the Examiner’s rejection of claim 13 and claims 16 to 20 dependent thereon. We will also not sustain the rejection as it is directed to claims 21 and 29 and claims 24 to 28 and 32 to 36 dependent thereon because claims 21 and 29 include language similar to the language of claim 13. We will likewise not sustain this rejection as it Appeal 2011-002482 Application 10/135,884 4 is direct to claim 37 and claim 38 dependent thereon because claim 37 recites storing compensation guidelines including a plurality of salary adjustments, each salary adjustment being associated with at least one of the individual objectives. As explained above, Calderaro does not disclose guidelines with compensation or salary adjustments associated with individual objectives. DECISION The decision of the Examiner is reversed. REVERSED hh Copy with citationCopy as parenthetical citation