Ex Parte Pearson et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Dec 5, 2013

10675909 (P.T.A.B. Dec. 5, 2013)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
____________

BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
____________

Ex parte GEORGE DUNCAN PEARSON, MICHAEL GOULD,
DAVID S. BOWEN, and DORIAN BAVERSTOCK
___________

Appeal 2011-010105
Application 10/675,909
Technology Center 3600
____________

Before MURRIEL E. CRAWFORD, MEREDITH C. PETRAVICK, and
JAMES A. TARTAL, Administrative Patent Judges.

PETRAVICK, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL
Appeal 2011-010105
Application 10/675,909

2
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
George Duncan Pearson et al. (Appellants) seek our review under 35
U.S.C. § 134 of the final rejection of claims 7-10, 12, 13, and 22-31. We
have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).

SUMMARY OF DECISION
We AFFIRM. 1

THE INVENTION
Claim 7, reproduced below, is illustrative of the subject matter on
appeal.
7. A computer-implemented method comprising:
executing, by a computing device, an
enterprise planning session in accordance with an
enterprise planning model, wherein the enterprise
planning model defines hierarchically arranged
nodes associated with business logic software
modules and enterprise contributors, wherein
executing the enterprise planning session
comprises:
receiving, by the computing device
contribution data provided by the enterprise
contributors, wherein the contribution data
corresponds to one or more of the nodes of the
enterprise planning model; and
automating, by the computing device,

1 Our decision will make reference to the Appellants’ Appeal Brief (“Br.,”
filed Jan. 4, 2011) and the Examiner’s Answer (“Ans.,” mailed Feb. 16,
2011).

Appeal 2011-010105
Application 10/675,909

3
reconciliation of the contribution data across an
enterprise that corresponds to the enterprise
planning model by automatically aggregating the
contribution data as the contribution data is
received, wherein the enterprise planning model
comprises a financial model;
checking-out, by the computing device, an
individual one of the nodes of the model for
editing during execution of the enterprise planning
session in accordance with the enterprise planning
model; and
modifying, by the computing device, the
checked-out individual one of the nodes of the
model without preventing execution of the
enterprise planning session for the nodes of the
enterprise planning model that are not checked out,
wherein at least one of the nodes of the enterprise
planning model that is not checked out receives
contribution data from the checked-out individual
one of the nodes without taking the model offline.

THE REJECTIONS
The Examiner relies upon the following as evidence of
unpatentability:
Elkin US 2007/0179828 A1 Aug. 2, 2007
Welcome to Adaytum software, 1-41 (Apr. 2, 1998 and Mar. 4, 2001)
(www.adaytum.co.uk retrieved from archive.org and google.com:)
(last visited Dec. 05, 2005) (Hereinafter, Adaytum.)

Petra Heinl et al., A comprehensive Approach to Flexibility in
Workflow Management Systems, 2 SIGSOFT Software Engineering
Notes, 79-88 (Mar. 1999) (Hereinafter, Heinl.)

Appeal 2011-010105
Application 10/675,909

4
J.J. Halliday et al., Flexible Workflow Management in the
OPENflow system, 1-16 4th Int’l Enterprise Distributed Object
Computing Conference (2001) (Hereinafter, Halliday.)

The following rejection is before us for review:
1. Claims 7-10, 12, 13, and 22-31 are rejected under 34 U.S.C. §
103(a) as being unpatentable over Adaytum, Elkin, Halliday,
and Heinl.

ISSUE
The issue is whether the combination of the prior art teaches claim 7’s
recitation of “at least one of the nodes of the enterprise planning model that
is not checked out receives contribution data from the checked-out
individual one of the nodes without taking the model offline.”

FINDINGS OF FACT
We adopt the Examiner’s findings of fact which are supported by at
least a preponderance of the evidence. Ethicon, Inc. v. Quigg, 849 F.2d
1422, 1427 (Fed. Cir. 1988) (explaining the general evidentiary standard for
proceedings before the Office).

ANALYSIS
Claims 7-10, 12, 13, 22, and 23
We are not persuaded by Appellants’ arguments (Br. 9-13) that the
Examiner erred in rejecting claim 7 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Adaytum, Elkin, Halliday, and Heinl. We have
considered fully all of Appellants’ arguments, but do not find them
Appeal 2011-010105
Application 10/675,909

5
persuasive for the reasons given on pages 17-20 of the Examiner’s Answer,
which we will not reproduce here.
Appellants do not provide separate arguments for dependent claims 8-
10, 12, 13, 22, and 23 (see Br. 13), and, therefore, these claims will stand or
fall with claim 7 (see 37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(1)(vii)). Accordingly, the
rejection of claims 7-10, 12, 13, 22, and 23 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
being unpatentable over Adaytum, Elkin, Halliday, and Heinl is sustained.

Claims 24-31
We are not persuaded by Appellants’ arguments (Br. 9-13) that the
Examiner erred in rejecting claims 24-31 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Adaytum, Elkin, Halliday, and Heinl. To contest the
rejection of independent claims 24 and 28, Appellants rely upon their
arguments contesting the rejection of claim 7. See Br. 13. However,
neither claim 24 nor claim 28 recites the limitation at issue with respect to
Appellants’ arguments contesting the rejection of claim 7, and, therefore, we
find Appellants’ arguments unpersuasive as to the rejection of claims 24 and
28.
We note that Appellants state that claims 24 and claim 28 “include
similar requirements” (id.) but do not point to any limitations that require
these “similar requirements,” and, as claims 24 and 28 differ substantially
from claim 7, we decline to speculate which limitations recite these “similar
requirements.” Appellants make no other arguments to contest the rejection
of claims 24 and 28.
Appellants do not provide separate arguments for dependent claims
25-27 and 29-31 (see Br. 13), and, therefore, these claims will stand or fall
Appeal 2011-010105
Application 10/675,909

6
with claim 7 (see 37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(1)(vii)). Accordingly, the rejection
of claims 24-31 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over
Adaytum, Elkin, Halliday, and Heinl is sustained.

DECISION
The decision of the Examiner to reject claims 7-10, 12-13, and 22-31
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)(1)(iv).

AFFIRMED

hh