Ex Parte Nguyen et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Jun 30, 2016

12180955 (P.T.A.B. Jun. 30, 2016)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE
12/180,955 07/28/2008
46320 7590 07/05/2016
CRGOLAW
STEVEN M. GREENBERG
7900 Glades Road
SUITE 520
BOCA RATON, FL 33434
FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
Kiet Q. Nguyen
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.
RSW920080210US1 (413) 1038
EXAMINER
GARCIA-GUERRA, DARLENE
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
3683
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
07/05/2016 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):
docketing@crgolaw.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte KIET Q. NGUYEN, ANNAPUREDDY S. REDDY,
and SHUBHA S. TANGIRALA
Appeal2013-000742
Application 12/180,955
Technology Center 3600
Before JOHN A. JEFFERY, STEPHEN C. SIU, and BRETT C. MARTIN,
Administrative Patent Judges.
MARTIN, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Appellants appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134 from a rejection of claims 1-
14. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We AFFIRM.
Appeal2013-000742
Application 12/180,955
CLAIMED SUBJECT MATTER
The claims are directed to "the field of business process management
and more particularly to software that facilitates business activity
monitoring." Spec. i-f 1. Claim 1, reproduced below, is illustrative of the
claimed subject matter:
1. A method for managing key performance indicators
(KPis) in an enterprise business having a plurality of business
units, comprising:
receiving in memory of a computer a target for a general
KPI and at least one constraint for a general attribute, wherein
the general KPI is calculated based on an aggregation of
corresponding KPis in all business units and wherein the general
attribute is calculated based on an aggregation of corresponding
attributes in all business units;
reading from the memory a separate formula for each of
the business units, wherein a formula defines how changes in the
KPI for a business unit are correlated with changes in the
attribute for the business unit;
calculating by a processor of the computer for each
business unit a separate target for the KPI of the business unit
such that: a) the general attribute remains within the at least one
constraint and b) the target for the general KPI is attained; and
sending to each business unit by the computer over a
computer communications network a separate target that was
calculated.
REFERENCES
The prior art relied upon by the Examiner in rejecting the claims on
appeal is:
Vlach
Lisser
Hladik
Reina
Retsina
Azvine
us 5,548,539
US 2002/0165757 Al
US 2003/0069773 Al
US 2004/0199416 Al
US 2005/0091102 Al
US 2008/0243912 Al
2
Aug. 20, 1996
Nov. 7, 2002
Apr. 10, 2003
Oct. 7, 2004
Apr. 28, 2005
Oct. 2, 2008
Appeal2013-000742
Application 12/180,955
REJECTIONS
Claims 1, 4, 7, 8, 11, and 14 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a)
as being unpatentable over Azvine, Retsina, and Hladik. Final Act. 5.
Claims 2, 3, 9 and 10 stand rejected under 35 U.S .. C § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Azvine, Retsina, Hladik, and Lisser. Final Act. 12.
Claims 5 and 12 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Azvine, Retsina, Hladik, and Reina. Final Act. 15.
Claims 6 and 13 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. §103(a) as being
unpatentable over Azvine, Retsina, Hladik, Reina, and Vlach. Final Act. 1 7.
OPINION
The Appellants rely on the arguments presented for the patentability
of claims 1 and 8 alone in rebutting the various rejections of dependent
claims 2-7 and 9-14. App. Br. 4, 8. The Appellants additionally choose
claim l as representative. App. Br. 4. Accordingly, the disposition of the
rejections of the claims turns on our analysis of the rejection of claim 1.
As the Appellants state, "at the crux of Appellants' argument was that
while Appellants' claim language requires an aggregation of PK.I values
from different business units, the cited art teaches only an overall KPI value
that is apportioned into product specific portions." App. Br. 6. The
Appellants further elaborate, "paragraphs [0041] through [0049] of Retsina
make clear, the KPI values of the equation of paragraph [0038] are not KPI
values computed per department as asserted by Examiner, but KPI values
computed per product." Reply Br. 5. Essentially the Appellants admit that
Retsina aggregates KPI values, but assert that they are not the same as in the
3
Appeal2013-000742
Application 12/180,955
claims because the KPI values in Retsina are on a per-product basis, which
is allegedly not the same as the claimed KPI values of "business units."
The Examiner, however, has made an unrebutted finding that what
Retsina teaches are not merely "product" KPI values, but that "the
performance indicator benchmarking system and method of Retsina uses
data from each significant production line (i.e. business unit) to calculate the
facility's overall key performance indicator." Ans. 21. The Examiner has
clearly made a finding that Retsina teaches KPis per "production line" and
that production lines are the same as the claimed "business units." The
Examiner also makes the equation of product lines and business units clear
by stating that "an overall KPI for a facility is calculated based on an
aggregation of corresponding KPis in product lines (i.e. business units)."
Ans. 7 (emphasis added).
When discussing the KPis of products, Retsina introduces the topic by
stating that it will discuss "[a]llocation of performance per product line."
Retsina i150. As the Examiner also states, "Retsina teaches that KPis are
formulated both for the overall facility as well as for the individual
departments within it (paragraph 24)." Ans. 21. It is reasonable to presume,
as the Examiner has done, that an individual production line or department
may produce a single product or product line. Accordingly, whether called a
product, product line, or production line, it is reasonable to consider the
teachings in Retsina as relating to a particular business unit, as the Examiner
has done. Further, as stated above, the Appellants have not rebutted the
Examiner's finding that product/production lines equate to the claimed
4
Appeal2013-000742
Application 12/180,955
business units. In fact, the Appellants say nothing about this finding other
than asserting that products are not the same as departments. Reply Br. 5. 1
The Appellants rely on this unpersuasive argument alone with respect
to claims 1 and 8. Accordingly, we sustain the Examiner's rejection of
claims 1 and 8. As noted above, the Appellants do not separately argue the
dependent claims, and, as such, we sustain the rejections of claims 2-7 and
9-14 as well.
DECISION
The Examiner's rejection of claims 1-14 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)(l )(iv).
AFFIRMED
1 We also note that the Appellants state that "anticipation of Appellants'
claims by Retsina is negated." Reply Br. 5. Retsina, however, is used by
the Examiner in all instances as part of an obviousness rejection.
5