Ex Parte Metz

Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences

Sep 14, 2011

11456196 (B.P.A.I. Sep. 14, 2011)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
____________

BEFORE THE BOARD OF PATENT APPEALS
AND INTERFERENCES
____________

Ex parte BRENT D. METZ
____________

Appeal 2010-006468
Application 11/456,196
Technology Center 3600
____________

Before MURRIEL E. CRAWFORD, HUBERT C. LORIN, and JOSEPH A.
FISCHETTI, Administrative Patent Judges.

CRAWFORD, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL
Appeal 2010-006468
Application 11/456,196

2

STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Appellant seeks our review under 35 U.S.C. § 134 of the Examiner’s
final decision rejecting claims 1 to 14 and 21 to 25. We have jurisdiction
over the appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We AFFIRM.
BACKGROUND
Appellant’s invention is directed to personal price indexing based
upon spending limits (Spec., para. [0001]).
Claim 1 is illustrative:
1. A method for computing a personal
price index (PPI) comprising:
computing equipment analyzing a personal
spending data set associated with at least one of an
individual and household;
computing equipment categorizing expenses
in the data set in accordance with expense
categories;
computing equipment weighing relative
contributions of each of the expense categories in
accordance with the categorized expenses to derive
personal category weights; and
computing equipment calculating a personal
price index utilizing the personal category weights.

Appellant appeals the following rejections:
Claims 1 to 6, 12 to 14, and 21 to 25 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a)
as unpatentable over Chancey (US Pat. 5,842,185, iss. Nov. 24, 1998) and
Consumer Price Index (CPI) Calculator
(http://web.archive.org/web/*/http://www.csgnetwork.com/cpicalc.html)
(last visited Jan. 14, 2009) (hereinafter “CPI Calculator”).

Appeal 2010-006468
Application 11/456,196
3
Claims 7 to 11 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over
Chancey, CPI, and Appellant’s Admitted Prior Art (hereinafter “AAPA”).

ISSUES
Did the Examiner err in rejecting the claims because the Examiner has
not articulated a reasoning with some rational underpinning to support the
legal conclusion of obviousness?
Did the Examiner err in rejecting the claims because (1) CPI
Calculator provides no teaching regarding a personal price index, (2) CPI
Calculator teaches away from the invention, and (3) modifying the CPI
Calculator will render it unsuitable for its intended purpose?

FACTUAL FINDINGS
We adopt all the Examiner’s findings as our own. (Ans. 3 to 4). In
addition, we make the following findings:
Chancey discloses a method and system for electronically tracking
financial transactions (col. 1, ll. 1 to 3). Chancey discloses that financial
management programs allow a user to track the nature of financial
transactions by categorizing each transaction as a particular type of income
or expense (col. 1, ll. 20 to 24). With the features of these programs, a user
can track the amount of money he or she spends on a particular category
(col. 1, ll. 25 to 27). Chancey also discloses that a user can use the program
to generate a report that determines the amounts in each category and that
such a feature is helpful in keeping within a budget (col. 1, ll. 28 to 31).
CPI Calculator discloses a calculator designed to give related
information to the Consumer Price Index (CPI). The CPI is an estimation of
the price changes for a typical basket of goods such as housing, food,
Appeal 2010-006468
Application 11/456,196
4
education, clothing, and other items. The prices of these goods are
compared from one month to the next and the difference represents the CPI.
CPI Calculator also discloses that the goods are weighted appropriately in
order to get an accurate measure. In this regard, food counts more than
education since it is one of the main daily spending (p. 1).

ANALYSIS
We are not persuaded of error on the part of the Examiner by
Appellant’s argument that the Examiner has not articulated a reasoning with
some rational underpinning to support the legal conclusion of obviousness.
The Examiner found on pages 3 and 4 of the Answer that Chancey discloses
the invention as recited in claim 1 except that Chancey does not disclose
computing equipment weighing relative contributions of each of the expense
categories in accordance with the categorized expenses to derive personal
category weights and calculating a personal price index utilizing the
personal category weights. The Examiner relies on CPI Calculator for
teaching a calculator that weighs the relative contribution of each expense
and calculates a price index utilizing the category weights.
In our view, the Examiner has adequately articulated a reasoning with
a rational underpinning for combining the teachings of Chancey and CPI
Calculator, namely to monitor the personal spending habits of the individual
over time (Ans. 9). This reason for combination is rational and accords with
the goals of Chancey of tracking the nature of financial transactions of an
individual and of keeping within a budget. A person of ordinary skill in the
art would have had a reason to use the weighting process of the calculator
disclosed in CPI Calculator to get more information on personal spending
habits.
Appeal 2010-006468
Application 11/456,196
5
In addition, the use of the CPI Calculator weighting process in
combination with the method disclosed in Chancey would be no more than
the combination of known methods to produce a predictable result. KSR
Int’l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 US 398, 416 (2007). In regard to the
Appellant’s argument that neither reference acknowledges the problem
addressed by the Appellant, we note that it is not necessary that the cited
references are directed to the same problem addressed by the Appellant.
KSR, 550 US at 420.
We are not persuaded of error on the part of the Examiner by
Appellant’s argument that CPI Calculator provides no teaching regarding a
personal price index because this argument is directed to the teachings of
CPI Calculator alone. Nonobviousness cannot be established by attacking
the references individually when the rejection is predicated upon a
combination of prior art disclosures. See In re Merck & Co. Inc., 800 F.2d
1091, 1097 (Fed. Cir. 1986).
We are also not persuaded of error on the part of the Examiner by
Appellant’s argument that CPI Calculator teaches away from the invention.
A reference may be said to teach away when a person of ordinary skill, upon
reading the reference, would be discouraged from following the path set out
by the reference, or would be led in a direction divergent from the path that
was taken by the Appellant. CPI Calculator does not discourage the use of a
calculator to weigh personal expenses.
We are not persuaded of error on the part of the Examiner by
Appellant’s argument that modifying the CPI Calculator will render it
unsuitable for its intended purpose. We agree with the Examiner that when
personal category weights are used instead of national weights, the
calculator in CPI Calculator would yield an index which measures personal
Appeal 2010-006468
Application 11/456,196
6
spending habits instead of national spending habits. Therefore, the principle
of operation remains intact in the CPI Calculator.
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 2 to 6,
12 to 14, and 21 to 25 because the Appellant has not addressed to separate
patentability of these claims.
We will also sustain the rejection of claims 7 to 11 because the
Appellant has not separately addressed this rejection.

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).
AFFIRMED

hh