Ex Parte Uhl et al

Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences

Feb 11, 2011

10224393 (B.P.A.I. Feb. 11, 2011)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
TJnited States Patent and Trademark Office
Add,&: COMMISSIONER FOR PATENTS
P 0 Box 1450
Alexandria, Virginia 22313-1450
www uspto go"
101224,393 08/21/2002 Stephen Uhl 067433-0314798 9198
APPLICATION NO.
909 7590 02/15/2011
PILLSBURY WINTHROP SHAW PITTMAN, LLP
EXAMINER
FILING DATE
P.O. BOX 10500 PATS, JUSTIN
MCLEAN. VA 22102
FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
I ARTUNIT I PAPERNUMBER I
ATTORNEY DOCKET NO.
Please find below andlor attached an Office communication concerning this application or proceeding.
CONFIRMATION NO.
NOTIFICATION DATE
The time period for reply, if any, is set in the attached communication.
DELIVERY MODE
Notice of the Office communication was sent electronically on above-indicated "Notification Date" to the
following e-mail address(es):
02/15/2011 ELECTRONIC
docket-ip @pillsburylaw.com
margaret.drosos @pillsburylaw.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE BOARD OF PATENT APPEALS
AND INTERFERENCES
Ex parte STEPHEN UHL,
ROBERT BLATT, and
CLINT KORVER
Appeal 2010-000379
Application 101224,393
Technology Center 3600
Before HUBERT C. LORIN, ANTON W. FETTING, and
JOSEPH A. FISCHETTI, Administrative Patent Judges.
FETTING, Administrative Patent Judge.
The two-month time period for filing an appeal or commencing a civil
action, as recited in 37 C.F.R. 5 1.304, or for filing a request for rehearing,
as recited in 37 C.F.R. 5 41.52, begins to run from the "MAIL DATE"
(paper delivery mode) or the "NOTIFICATION DATE" (electronic delivery
mode) shown on the PTOL-90A cover letter attached to this decision.
Appeal 2010-000379
Application 101224,393
An oral hearing was held on January 17,201 1.
Stephen Uhl, Robert Blatt, and Clint Korver (Appellants) seek review
under 35 U.S.C. 5 134 (2002) of a final rejection of claims 1-6, 9-26, 29, 32,
33, and 36-44, the only claims pending in the application on appeal. We
have jurisdiction over the appeal pursuant to 35 U.S.C. 5 6(b) (2002).
The Appellants invented a way of dynamic construction of business or
other analysis for the evaluation of opportunities (Specification 1 : 13- 14).
An understanding of the invention can be derived from a reading of
exemplary claim 1, which is reproduced below [bracketed matter and some
paragraphing added].
1. A computer-implemented system for dynamic creation of
analytics for the evaluation of opportunities, the system
comprising :
[I] an application server comprising one or more processors,
the one or more processors configured to execute a plurality of
processing modules including:
[2] a first module that creates component objects that
model components of opportunities,
a given component object comprising component
attributes and
2 Our decision will make reference to the Appellants' Appeal Brief ("App.
Br.," filed May 11, 2009) and Reply Brief ("Reply Br.," filed September 8,
2009), and the Examiner's Answer ("Ans.," mailed July 7, 2009).
Appeal 2010-000379
Application 101224,393
component logic,
wherein the component logic comprises one or
more rules
that are applied to the component attributes
to generate a result associated with
the given component object;
[3] a second module that creates an opportunity object
that models an opportunity,
the opportunity object comprising opportunity
attributes and opportunity logic;
[4] a third module that associates one or more of the
component objects with the opportunity object
based at least in part on at least one user selection
of an individual component object;
[5] a fourth module that obtains inputs for the component
attributes of the associated one or more component
objects,
wherein at least one of the inputs comprises a
range of uncertainty
that represents uncertainty associated with a
value of the corresponding component
attribute;
[6] a fifth module that calculates at least one metric
representing the value of the opportunity,
wherein calculation by the fifth module of the at
least one metric comprises
(i) generating results for each of the
associated one or more component objects
by applying the component logic of
the associated one or more component
objects to the obtained attributes of
the associated one or more component
objects, and
Appeal 2010-000379
Application 101224,393
(ii) generating the at least one metric
by applying the opportunity logic to
the previously generated results for
each of the associated one or more
component objects.
The Examiner relies upon the following prior art:
Campestre US 6,220,743 B1 Apr. 24,2001
Kitahara US 2002/0174049 A1 Nov. 21,2002
Rust US 6,968,538 B2 Nov. 22,2005
Logical Decisions for Windows Data Sheet (LDW),
http://web.archive.org/web/200 108 14062748lwww .logicaldecisions.com
/prod01 .htm (last visited August 14, 2001.
Claims 1-6, 9-26, 29, 32, 33, and 36-44 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C.
5 103(a) as unpatentable over Campestre, Kitahara, Rust, and LDW.
ISSUES
The issues of obviousness turn on whether Rust shows how to
implement Campestre's opportunity objects and selection of components in
the form of objects.
FACTS PERTINENT TO THE ISSUES
The following enumerated Findings of Fact (FF) are believed to be
supported by a preponderance of the evidence.
Facts Related to the Prior Art
Appeal 2010-000379
Application 101224,393
Campestre
01. Campestre is directed to computer-aided design of new durable
goods from knowledge of the durable goods of interest the
economics thereof. Campestre 1 : 15-21.
02. Campestre includes an opportunity identification subsystem,
selection procedures for selecting processes and for selecting
adequate classes of materials based on functional values and
application domains, and a graphical user interface. Campestre
7:42-50.
03. Campestre uses software objects for modeling. Campestre
10:31-36. Campestre describes porting its application to an object
oriented graphical toolkit. Campestre 12:4- 1 1.
04. Campestre's opportunity identification module uses hierarchies
of concepts, which include semantic and inheritance of
characteristics and behaviors. Campestre 3 1 :9-27.
Kita hara
05. Kitahara is directed to supporting investment decision making,
which allows performing economic value evaluation of an R&D
project accompanying a high risk and a large scale investment,
simulating an economic value of the project varying due to
various uncertainties and supporting an optimal investment
decision making. Kitahara ¶ 0006.
06. Kitahara provides a set of parameter values to the Profit Model,
such as macro economic indicators and/or individual
Appeal 2010-000379
Application 101224,393
pricelresource volume. When there is uncertainty in the data item,
the value of the range and distribution that will indicate the
uncertainty will also be included. Kitahara ¶ 0 195.
Rust
07. Rust is directed to computer program products that provide the
benefits of an application-embedded integrated development
environment in designing object classes, but that allow users to
instantiate and use objects of those classes outside of the
development environment. Rust 2: 19-24.
08. Rust's FIG. 3 illustrates a method for creating a new component
object class. A user implements a pre-defined object model and
provides an input specifying the creation of a new coclass
implementation. A coclass design module retrieves a list of
interfaces associated with the class type, as well as context
information necessary to tie objects instantiated from the new
coclass into the client application's object. The user selects one or
more interfaces to be implemented in the coclass. The coclass
design module creates a new project and a coclass. For each
selected interface, the coclass design module locates a type library
containing property and method definitions for each property and
method associated with the interface, and a code skeleton for each
such property and method. The user can then enter additional code
implementing the properties and methods. Rust 5:43 - 6:4.
Appeal 2010-000379
Application 101224,393
LDW
09. LDW is directed to describing a decision support software
package.
10. LDW uses graphical objects to allow a user to construct a
hierarchical logical flow diagram. LDW 6.
ANALYSIS
We are unpersuaded by the Appellants' argument that the art fails to
describe associating component objects with the opportunity object based on
user selection of an individual component object. Campestre describes
associating various attributes and behaviors with opportunity objects.
Campestre uses a graphical user interface for selecting classes of materials
based on functional values and uses inheritance of characteristics in class
hierarchies. FF 01-04. Thus, Campestre describes associating components
with opportunity objects based on user selection of components, and
Campestre describes an object oriented implementation.
The issue then reduces to whether it was obvious to use objects for such
components. The Examiner applied Rust to show how object oriented
programming suggests doing so. FF 07-08. Since Campestre already
suggests using an object oriented modeling platform, implying manipulation
of instantiated objects, for assigning inheritable attributes and behaviors to
opportunity objects, Rust shows the mechanism by which using objects for
such inheritable items would be implemented. The Appellants make various
contentions regarding the lack of detail in LDW, but the Examiner applied
Appeal 2010-000379
Application 101224,393
LDW only to show how using objects to structure a hierarchical problem
could be visualized. FF 10.
We are persuaded that the Examiner failed to present a prima facie case
as to claims 19, 39,43, and 44. As the Appellants contend at Appeal Br. 11-
13, the Examiner simply relied on the findings as to claim 17 (Ans. 13).
Although the Examiner responded with some findings at Ans. 16, as the
Appellants in turn respond at Reply Br. 8, the Examiner does not show us
where the Examiner is finding a discussion of key influencers via ability to
display affects of uncertainty on ranking results in Logical Decisions. We
are unable to discern the limitations in these claims in Logical Decisions.
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
Rejecting claims 1-6, 9-18, 20-26, 29, 32, 33, 36-38, and 40-42 under 35
U.S.C. 5 103(a) as unpatentable over Campestre, Kitahara, Rust, and LDW
is proper.
Rejecting claims 19, 39,43, and 44 under 35 U.S.C. 5 103(a) as
unpatentable over Campestre, Kitahara, Rust, and LDW is improper.
DECISION
To summarize, our decision is as follows.
The rejection of claims 1-6, 9-18, 20-26, 29, 32, 33, 36-38, and 40-42
under 35 U.S.C. 5 103(a) as unpatentable over Campestre, Kitahara,
Rust, and LDW is sustained.
Appeal 2010-000379
Application 101224,393
The rejection of claims 19, 39,43, and 44 under 35 U.S.C. 3 103(a) as
unpatentable over Campestre, Kitahara, Rust, and LDW is not
sustained.
No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with this
appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. 5 1.136(a). See 37 C.F.R.
5 1.136(a)(l)(iv) (2007).
AFFIRMED-IN-PART
mev
Address
PILLSBURY WINTHROP SHAW PITTMAN, LLP
P.O. BOX 10500
MCLEAN VA 22 102