Ex Parte Maga et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Jan 29, 2015

11292843 (P.T.A.B. Jan. 29, 2015)

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.
11/292,843 12/01/2005 Matteo Maga 10022-736 7496
28164 7590 01/29/2015
BGL/Accenture - Chicago
BRINKS GILSON & LIONE
P O BOX 10395
CHICAGO, IL 60610
EXAMINER
FEACHER, LORENA R
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
3623
MAIL DATE DELIVERY MODE
01/29/2015 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 MATTEO MAGA,
PAOLO CANALE,
and
ASTRID BOHE
____________

Appeal 2012-003771
Application 11/292,843
Technology Center 3600
____________

Before MURRIEL E. CRAWFORD, BIBHU R. MOHANTY, and
MICHAEL W. KIM, Administrative Patent Judges.

CRAWFORD, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL

STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Appellants seek our review under 35 U.S.C. § 134 of the Examiner’s
final decision rejecting claims 1–18. We have jurisdiction over the appeal
under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We AFFIRM.

Appeal 2012-003771
Application 11/292,843

2
BACKGROUND
Appellants’ invention is directed to a method and system for
providing a financial analysis of an enhanced wireless communications
service (Spec. 1).
Claim 1 is illustrative:
1. An analytic system comprising:
a processor;
a data storage device adapted to receive and store
customer and revenue data;
a data manipulation module associated with the data
storage device, comprising processing instructions that when
executed by the processor derive calculated values from data
stored in the data storage device; and
an interface device, controlled by the processor, that
interacts with a user and displays data including the calculated
values from data stored in the data storage device, and displays
a diagnostic tree representing an enterprise's revenue stream
decomposed into a plurality of contributory revenue
components and a calculated value associated with revenue
generated from one of the contributory revenue components,
wherein the data manipulation module calculates the
calculated value from the one of the contributory revenue
components of the decomposition of the enterprise’s revenue
stream based on the user interaction.

The Examiner relies on the following prior art references as evidence
of unpatentability:
Lokken US 6,167,396 Dec. 26, 2000
Suresh US 6,208,990 B1 Mar. 27, 2001
Eskandari US 2004/0039593 A1 Feb. 26, 2004
Hao US 2005/0177598 A1 Aug. 11, 2005
Adduci WO 01/93158 A1 Dec. 6, 2001

Appeal 2012-003771
Application 11/292,843

3
Kornel Terplan, OSS Essentials: Support System Solutions for Service
Providers, 7601010 Advance course in network based automation
(Dec. 2003) (“Terplan”).

Appellants appeal the following rejections:
Claims 1, 3, 8, 10, and 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
being unpatentable over Eskandari in view of Adduci.
Claims 2 and 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Adduci in view of Suresh.
Claim 4 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable
over Eskandari in view of Adduci and further in view of Hao.
Claims 5, 6, 15, 16, and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
being unpatentable over Eskandari in view of Adduci in view of Hao and
further in view of Lokken.
Claims 7 and 11–13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Eskandari in view of Adduci and further in view of
Lokken.
Claim 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable
over Eskandari in view of Adduci in view of Lokken and further in view of
Terplan.

ISSUES
Does Adduci in combination with Eskandari teach, suggest, or
disclose (1) a data manipulation model comprising processing instructions
that when executed calculates values from one of the contributory revenue
components of the decomposition of the enterprise’s revenue stream? (2) an
interface device that displays a diagnostic tree representing an enterprise’s
Appeal 2012-003771
Application 11/292,843

4
revenue stream decomposed into a plurality of contributory revenue
components based on customer use of the products or services? and (3) a
manipulation model that calculates a decomposition of an enterprise’s
revenue stream based on a user interaction as required by claim 1?
Does Adduci disclose allowing the user to select portions of the
diagnostic tree to be displayed as is recited in claim 10?

FACTUAL FINDINGS
We adopt the Examiner’s findings on pages 5–8 and pages 10–12 of
the Answer as our own.

ANALYSIS
Obviousness of claims 1, 3, 8, 10, and 17
We are not persuaded of error on the part of the Examiner by
Appellants’ argument that Adduci in combination with Eskandari does not
teach, suggest, or disclose a data manipulation model comprising processing
instructions that calculates the calculated value from the one of the
contributory revenue components of the decomposition of the enterprise’s
revenue stream. We agree with the Examiner’s response to this argument
found on page 27–28 of the Answer. In this regard, we agree that the
depiction in Figure 15 of revenue streams per customer category is a
disclosure of calculated values from one of the contributory revenue
components of a decomposition of revenue streams.
We are also not persuaded of error on the part of the Examiner by
Appellants’ argument that the combination of Adduci and Eskandari does
not disclose displaying a diagnostic tree representing an enterprise’s revenue
Appeal 2012-003771
Application 11/292,843

5
stream decomposed into a plurality of contributory revenue components
based on customer use of the products or services. We agree with the
Examiner’s response to this argument found on pages 30–31 of the Answer
that Figure 9 of Adduci discloses this subject matter. In this regard, Figure 9
is a graph that depicts revenue from different market segments, i.e., adults,
youth, large businesses, medium businesses and small businesses and as
such depicts revenue streams decomposed into a plurality of contributory
revenue components based on customary usage as broadly claimed.
We are not persuaded of error on the part of the Examiner by
Appellants’ argument that the prior art does not disclose a manipulation
model that calculates a decomposition of an enterprises revenue stream
based on a user interaction. We agree with the Examiner’s response to this
argument found on pages 31–32 of the Answer that this subject matter is
taught in Eskandari. In addition, we find that the teaching in Adduci at
pages 16–17 that values are calculated based on user-specific input data
meets this limitation of the claim.
In view of the foregoing, we will sustain the Examiner’s rejection of
claim 1. We will also sustain the rejection as it is directed to claims 3, 8,
and 17 because the Appellants have not argued the separate patentability of
these claims.
We are not persuaded of error on the part of the Examiner by
Appellants’ argument that the prior does not disclose allowing a user to
select portions of the diagnostic tree to be displayed as recited in claim 10.
We agree with the Examiner that the teaching in Adduci that a user can
choose which wireless application to evaluate and which wireless
application to display a graphical depiction of a financial analysis thereof is
Appeal 2012-003771
Application 11/292,843

6
a teaching of allowing a user to select portions of a diagnostic tree to be
displayed (p. 16, l. 24 – p. 17, l. 22; Fig. 4).
In view of the foregoing, we will sustain the Examiner’s rejection of
claim 10.

Obviousness of claims 2 and 14
Appellants rely on the arguments made in response to the rejection of
claims 1 and 10 in responding to the rejection of the above-referenced
claims. We do not find the arguments persuasive as to these claims for the
same reasons given above.

Obviousness of claim 4
Appellants rely on the arguments made in response to the rejection of
claim 1 in responding to the rejection of the above-referenced claims. We
do not find the arguments persuasive as to these claims for the same reasons
given above.

Obviousness of claims 5, 6, 15, 16, and 18
Appellants rely on the arguments made in response to the rejection of
claims 1 and 10 in responding to the rejection of the above-referenced
claims. We do not find the arguments persuasive as to these claims for the
same reasons given above.

Appeal 2012-003771
Application 11/292,843

7
Obviousness of claims 7, 11, 12, and 13
Appellants rely on the arguments made in response to the rejection of
claims 1 and 10 in responding to the rejection of the above-referenced
claims. We do not find the arguments persuasive as to these claims for the
same reasons given above.

Obviousness of claim 9
Appellants rely on the arguments made in response to the rejection of
claim 1 in responding to the rejection of the above-referenced claims. We
do not find the arguments persuasive as to these claims for the same reasons
given above.

DECISION
The decision of the Examiner 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) (2011).

AFFIRMED

hh