Marc Rowen

Patent Trials and Appeals Board

Oct 7, 2019

10426498 - (D) (P.T.A.B. Oct. 7, 2019)

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.
10/426,498 04/29/2003 Marc Rowen R00158NP 4632
129668 7590 10/07/2019
Invoke / Oracle
30 Wall Street #800
8th Floor
New York, NY 10005
EXAMINER
BUSCH, CHRISTOPHER CONRAD
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
3681
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
10/07/2019 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@InvokeIP.com
eofficeaction@appcoll.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
____________________

BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
____________________

Ex parte MARC ROWEN
__________________

Appeal 2018-006757
Application 10/426,498
Technology Center 3600
____________________

Before MICHAEL L. HOELTER, JAMES P. CALVE, and
MICHAEL L. WOODS, Administrative Patent Judges.

CALVE, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL

STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 134(a), Appellant1 appeals from the
Examiner’s decision to reject claims 86–102. Appeal Br. 3. We have
jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We AFFIRM.

1 “Appellant” refers to “applicant” as defined in 37 C.F.R. § 1.42. Appellant
identifies Oracle International Corporation as the real party in interest. See
Appeal Br. 3.
Appeal 2018-006757
Application 10/426,498

2
CLAIMED SUBJECT MATTER
The claims relate to organization incentive distribution data structures
(i.e., plans) and making modifications to the incentive distribution data or to
the plan rules used to generate the incentive distribution data. Spec. ¶ 23.
Claims 86, 94, and 102 are independent with claim 86 reproduced below.
86. A method comprising:
at a computer system having a processor and a memory
storing a hierarchical data structure representing an organization and
incentive distribution data for the organization generated by a set of
plan rules:
receiving, by the processor, a modification to the
incentive distribution data, wherein the modification is
generated by a change to the incentive distribution data or a
change to the set of plan rules that generated the incentive
distribution data;
characterizing, by the processor, a level of
approval for the modification as pending, the level of approval
for the modification stored in the memory;
storing, by the processor within the memory, a
hierarchical data structure comprising a plurality of leaf nodes
and a plurality of intermediary nodes for traversing between
leaf nodes;
identifying, by the processor, a first leaf node in
the hierarchical data structure corresponding to a first entity in
the organization that is affected by the modification;
traversing, by the processor, one or more
intermediary nodes from the first leaf node in the hierarchical
data structure to a second leaf node in the hierarchical data
structure, the one or more intermediary nodes used for
navigating between leaf nodes in the data structure, the second
leaf node classified as having an approver role;
determining whether the second leaf node in the
hierarchical data structure has approval authority for the
modification using approval data stored separately from the
hierarchical data structure representing the organization;
Appeal 2018-006757
Application 10/426,498

3
generating, by the processor, a request for an
approval of the modification using information about the first
entity in the organization, information about the second entity
in the organization, and the modification;
sending, by the processor, the request to a client
device associated with the second entity in the organization;
receiving, by the processor, a response to the
request;
modifying, by the processor, the level of approval
for the modification stored in the memory according to the
response; and
approving or reversing the modification to the
incentive distribution data based on the modified level of
approval for the modification stored in the memory.

REJECTIONS
Claims 86–102 are rejected as directed to patent-ineligible subject
matter under a judicial exception to 35 U.S.C. § 101.
Claims 86–102 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable
over Loya (US 2002/0035506 A1, published Mar. 21, 2002) and Rochelle
(US 2004/0088215 A1, published May 6, 2004).
ANALYSIS
Patent Eligibility of Claims 86–102
Section 101 of the Patent Act defines patent eligible-subject matter as:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine,
manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful
improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the
conditions and requirements of this title.

35 U.S.C. § 101 (2012). However, “[l]aws of nature, natural phenomena,
and abstract ideas are not patentable.” Alice Corp. Pty. v. CLS Bank Int’l,
573 U.S. 208, 216 (2014) (citation omitted).
Appeal 2018-006757
Application 10/426,498

4
To distinguish patents that claim laws of nature, natural phenomena,
and abstract ideas from those that claim patent-eligible applications, we first
determine whether the claims are directed to a patent-ineligible concept. Id.
at 217. If they are, we consider the elements of each claim, individually and
as an ordered combination, to determine if additional elements transform the
claim into a patent-eligible application, e.g., by providing an “inventive
concept” that ensures the patent amounts to significantly more than a patent
on the ineligible concept. Id. at 217–218.
Recently, the USPTO issued guidance about this framework. 2019
Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance, 84 Fed. Reg. 50 (Jan. 7,
2019) (“Revised Guidance”). Under the Revised Guidance, to determine
whether a claim is “directed to” an abstract idea, we evaluate whether the
claim recites (1) any judicial exceptions, including certain groupings of
abstract ideas listed in the Revised Guidance (i.e., mathematical concepts,
certain methods of organizing human activities such as a fundamental
economic practice, or mental processes); and (2) additional elements that
integrate the judicial exception into a practical application (see MPEP
§ 2106.05(a)–(c), (e)–(h)). See Revised Guidance, 84 Fed. Reg. at 51.
Only if a claim (1) recites a judicial exception and (2) does not
integrate that exception into a practical application, do we then consider
whether the claim (3) adds a specific limitation beyond the judicial
exception that is not “well-understood, routine, conventional” in the field
(see MPEP § 2106.05(d)) or (4) simply appends well-understood, routine,
conventional activities previously known to the industry, specified at a high
level of generality, to the judicial exception. Id. at 56.
Appeal 2018-006757
Application 10/426,498

5
Revised Step 2A, Prong One: Judicial Exceptions Recited in Claims
Appellant argues patent eligibility for independent claim 86 (Appeal
Br. 6–12), which we take as representative. 37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(1)(iv).
The Examiner determines claim 86 recites the abstract ideas of managing
incentive/reward plans in a business setting and an organizational workflow
process for managing incentives/rewards with steps of comparing new and
stored information using rules to identify options. Final Act. 2–3; Ans. 3.
The Revised Guidance calls these abstract ideas (1) certain methods of
organizing human activity––commercial interactions for sales and managing
personal behavior, relationships, or interactions between people using rules
and (2) mental processes performed in the human mind. Revised Guidance,
84 Fed. Reg. at 52. Similarly, the Specification describes these activities as
managing incentive transactions and allocations for employees, contractors,
and business objects of an organization. Spec. ¶¶ 1–6, 13, 14, 23, 24, 34, 35,
50–52, 57. Hence, the Specification is consistent with claim 86’s recitation
of certain methods of organizing human activity and mental processes.
The first limitation “at a computer system having a processor and a
memory storing a hierarchical data structure representing an organization
and incentive distribution data for the organization generated by a set of plan
rules” recites certain methods of organizing human activity by managing
relationships between people. The Specification describes the hierarchical
data structure as a preexisting data structure that is representative of an
organization and that is used to store relationships between business objects
of the organization. Id. ¶¶ 34–37. Business objects may be geographic
regions, sales channels, products, and individual sales people represented by
intermediate and leaf nodes. Id. ¶ 34.
Appeal 2018-006757
Application 10/426,498

6
The steps of “receiving . . . a modification to the incentive distribution
data,” “characterizing . . . a level of approval for the modification as
pending,” “storing . . . a hierarchical data structure comprising a plurality of
leaf nodes and a plurality of intermediary nodes for traversing between leaf
nodes,” “identifying . . . a first leaf node in the hierarchical data structure
corresponding to a first entity in the organization that is affected by the
modification,” and “traversing . . . one or more intermediary nodes from the
first leaf node in the hierarchical data structure to a second leaf node in the
hierarchical data structure” also recite this abstract idea. These steps involve
approving changes to incentive distribution data by identifying a first leaf
node (i.e., a person or entity) affected by the proposed modification and then
navigating within the data structure of relationships within the organization
from the first leaf node to a second leaf node having “an approver role.”
These steps also recite mental processes of observation and evaluation
of an organizational structure to identify persons affected by a modification
and their approval authority. The “intermediary nodes” may be related to
“leaf nodes” as sales group leader and sales group members or as different
entities such as companies, divisions or groups. Id. ¶¶ 34, 35.
The next step of “determining whether the second leaf node in the
hierarchical data structure has approval authority for the modification using
approval data stored separately from the hierarchical data structure
representing the organization” recites methods of organizing human activity
of commercial interactions, e.g., for sales activities, and managing personal
behavior, relationships, or interactions between people via rules and mental
processes discussed above. The hierarchical data structure, Role Data 130,
or Approval Authority Data 135 may be used for this step. See id. ¶ 42.
Appeal 2018-006757
Application 10/426,498

7
The final steps of “generating . . . a request for an approval of the
modification,” “sending . . . the request to a client device associated with the
second entity,” “receiving . . . a response,” “modifying . . . the level of
approval for the modification,” and “approving or reversing the modification
to the incentive distribution data based on the modified level of approval for
the modification stored in the memory” all involve the same abstract ideas.
The Specification describes these steps of organizing human activity
and mental processes as processing modifications to incentive distributions,
e.g., sales commissions. Id. ¶ 23. Approval Engine 155 provides approval
using approval rules. Id. ¶ 40. The approval level and approval authorities
depend on the modification and/or the business objects, e.g., modifications
involving more than a certain amount of money may require a specific
approval level such as a supervisor or multiple approval sources. Id. ¶¶ 27,
30, 41. A member of the organization’s hierarchical structure with approval
authority for a pending modification is identified by Approval Engine 155
using rules. Id. ¶ 42. A modification can be made to Plan Rules 140 used to
calculate Incentive Distribution Data 145. Id. ¶¶ 28, 29, 38, 39.
We determine that claim 86 recites the abstract ideas discussed above.
See Accenture Global Servs., GmbH v. Guidewire Software, Inc., 728 F.3d
1336, 1344 (Fed. Cir. 2013) (holding that a system for generating tasks to be
performed in an insurance organization when an event occurs by assigning
tasks to various individuals authorized to complete them and decomposing
an insurance claim into different levels based on rules was an abstract idea);
In re Ferguson, 558 F.3d 1359, 1364 (Fed. Cir. 2009) (holding that claims to
organizing business or legal relationships in a structure of a sales force or a
marketing company recite an abstract idea).
Appeal 2018-006757
Application 10/426,498

8
Revised Step 2A, Prong Two: Integration into a Practical Application
At Revised Step 2A, Prong Two, we consider any additional elements
that may integrate the abstract ideas into a practical application. Appellant
argues that the claims are rooted in computer technology. See Appeal Br. 6.
Appellant argues that generation and traversal of a hierarchical data structure
involve technical benefits. They differentiate leaf nodes from intermediary
nodes. They facilitate navigation between approver nodes in a data structure
and identify objects in a computing environment without using workflow
rules or spreadsheets to optimize processing of rules for leaf nodes. Id. at 7;
Reply Br. 1–2. Appellant argues that a hierarchical data structure functions
differently than conventional data structures for processing modifications to
incentive distribution data, and the data structure protects data security by
reversing unauthorized changes. Appeal Br. 7–9, 10; Reply Br. 2.
We agree with the Examiner that claim 86 recites a generic computer,
processor, and memory performing generic functions. See Final Act. 9–11.
The “computer system has “a processor and a memory storing a hierarchical
data structure representing an organization and incentive distribution data for
the organization.” Reply to Notification of Non-Compliant Appeal Brief,
filed Jan. 2, 2018, at 2 (Claim 86) (Claims App.). The processor performs
the steps of claim 86, which involve the abstract ideas discussed above.
The Specification describes Computing System 110 with Storage 120
configured to store data for incentive management system 100. Spec. ¶ 25.
Computing System 110 includes Processing Unit 165 configured to manage
access to Storage 120 and execute computer code. Id. ¶ 32. Processing Unit
165 may be an integrated circuit, e.g., central processing unit or logic circuit,
and Computer System 110 may be a distributed computing system. Id.
Appeal 2018-006757
Application 10/426,498

9
Thus, claim 86 does not tie the abstract ideas to a particular machine
that is integral to the claim sufficient to integrate the abstract ideas into a
practical application. Nor does claim 86 recite improvements to computers
or technology. Revised Guidance, 84 Fed. Reg. at 55. The Specification
discloses that Hierarchical Data Structure 200 merely stores relationships of
Business Objects 210A–210W, such as geographic regions 210A–210F,
sales channels 210G–210H, product types 210I–210UJ, and individual sales
people 210K–210W as illustrated in Figure 2, reproduced below. Id. ¶ 34.

Figure 2 shows Business Objects 210B–210J 210P as “intermediate
nodes” and Business Objects 210K–210N and 210Q–210W as “leaf nodes.”
Id. Furthermore, the hierarchical data structure may be a preexisting data
structure that is representative of an organization of the enterprise. Id. ¶ 24.
Appeal 2018-006757
Application 10/426,498

10
The asserted technical benefits of the hierarchical data structure (see
Appeal Br. 7–9, 10) merely involve traversing an organization chart from a
business object affected by a modification to an incentive program, i.e., a
“leaf node,” through intermediary nodes of the hierarchical data structure to
a second leaf node having an approver role. Spec. ¶ 57. This feature recites
the abstract ideas discussed above rather than an improvement to computers,
databases, processors, or memory. Nor is it rooted in computer technology.
It does not transform or reduce a particular article to a different state or
thing. See Revised Guidance, 84 Fed. Reg. at 55; Final Act. 10. Thus, it
does not integrate the abstract ideas into a practical application.
The method uses an organizational data structure to process incentive
distribution modifications. A “hierarchical data structure [is] representative
of relationships between business objects configured to provide the approval
and/or receive the notice” relating to an incentive plan. Spec. ¶ 24. The data
structure is a relationship database of business objects in an enterprise. Id.
¶¶ 25, 26, 34, 35. The related business objects are people, groups, divisions,
contractors, subsidiaries, channel and partners. Id. ¶ 25. A relationship can
exist between a sales group leader and sales group members. Id. ¶ 35. We
find no technological advance in databases or data structures in claim 86,
which merely recites the patent-ineligible abstract ideas discussed above.
The asserted improvement to data security by reversing or preventing
unauthorized changes to incentive distribution data (Appeal Br. 7) is not
claimed. Claim 86 recites a level of approval authority stored in memory
and a determination whether a second leaf node has an approver role, and
modifying the level of approval according to a response, which are abstract
ideas of organizing human activity and mental processes discussed above.
Appeal 2018-006757
Application 10/426,498

11
There is no evidence the claimed data structure provides more secure
data, operational efficiency, or code manageability. Reply Br. 2. Approval
Engine 155 navigates Hierarchical Data Structure 200 to Business Objects
(e.g., 210C) using Approval Authority Data 135 to determine which business
object has approval authority. Spec. ¶¶ 50–53. The processor traverses over
intermediary nodes between first and second leaf nodes of the organization’s
hierarchical data structure as a determination is made whether a second leaf
node has approval authority. These steps are mental processes and methods
of organizing human activity based on stored approval authorities.
Even if the steps are groundbreaking, innovative, or brilliant, that is
not enough for eligibility. See Ass’n for Molecular Pathology v. Myriad
Genetics, Inc., 569 U.S. 576, 591 (2013); accord SAP Am., Inc. v. InvestPic,
LLC, 898 F.3d 1161, 1163 (“No matter how much of an advance in the
finance field the claims recite, the advance lies entirely in the realm of
abstract ideas, with no plausibly alleged innovation in the non-abstract
application realm. An advance of that nature is ineligible for patenting.”);
RecogniCorp, LLC v. Nintendo Co., 855 F.3d 1322, 1327 (Fed. Cir. 2017)
(“Adding one abstract idea (math) to another abstract idea (encoding and
decoding) does not render the claim non-abstract.”); Synopsys, Inc. v.
Mentor Graphics Corp., 839 F.3d 1138, 1151 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (“[A] claim
for a new abstract idea is still an abstract idea. The search for a § 101
inventive concept is thus distinct from demonstrating § 102
novelty.”); Intellectual Ventures I LLC v. Symantec Corp., 838 F.3d 1307,
1315 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (“While the claims may not have been anticipated or
obvious [from] the prior art . . . that does not suggest that the idea . . . is not
abstract, . . . .”).
Appeal 2018-006757
Application 10/426,498

12
Claim 86 does not recite improvements to databases or computers
based on the claimed hierarchical data structure. See BSG Tech LLC v.
Buyseasons, Inc., 899 F.3d 1281, 1286–87 (Fed. Cir. 2018) (“Here, the
recited database structure similarly provides a generic environment in which
the claimed method is performed. . . . Thus, the recitation of a database
structure slightly more detailed than a generic database does not save the
asserted claims at step one.”). Applying an abstract idea in a narrow way is
insufficient to make the abstract idea patent eligible. Id. at 1287.
Instead, claim 86 merely recites traversing an organizational chart (the
hierarchical data structure) from a first leaf node nominated for an incentive
award through intermediary nodes to a second leaf node that has approval
authority. The hierarchical data structure is used to identify nodes that have
authority to approve an award. See Spec. ¶¶ 37, 40–42, 50–53, 57.
At best, the hierarchical data structure and method of claim 86 merely
automate an activity previously performed manually of searching through an
organization for persons with authority to approve incentive rules or data.
See id. ¶ 3. Indeed, the Specification discloses some approvals and input of
incentive data that may be performed manually. Id. ¶¶ 30, 38, 40; see OIP
Techs., Inc. v. Amazon.com, Inc., 788 F.3d 1359, 1363 (Fed. Cir. 2015)
(“But relying on a computer to perform routine tasks more quickly or more
accurately is insufficient to render a claim patent eligible.”); see also In re
Morinville, 767 F. App’x 964, 969–70 (Fed. Cir. 2019) (non-precedential)
(holding steps of automatically generating a dynamic functional organization
from an operating organization to restructure a business organization using
generic computer were not patent-eligible).
Thus, we determine that the claims are directed to an abstract idea.
Appeal 2018-006757
Application 10/426,498

13
Step 2B: Do the Claims Recite an Inventive Concept?
We next consider whether claim 86 recites any elements, individually
or as an ordered combination, that provide an inventive concept. Alice, 573
U.S. at 217–18. “The second step of the Alice test is satisfied when the
claim limitations involve more than performance of well-understood, routine
[and] conventional activities previously known to the industry.” Berkheimer
v. HP Inc., 881 F.3d 1360, 1367 (Fed. Cir. 2018) (internal quotations and
citation omitted); see Revised Guidance, 84 Fed. Reg. at 56.
Considering its limitations individually or as an ordered combination,
claim 86 lacks an inventive concept. Generic computer components perform
generic functions at a high level of generality involving abstract ideas. See
Alice, 573 U.S. at 223–26; Final Act. 9–12; Ans. 3–4 (the alleged “benefits”
are not technical; they are business processes that use a general purpose
computer). The brief description of these components in the Specification
indicates that they are well-known. See USPTO Memorandum, Changes in
Examination Procedure Pertaining to Subject Matter Eligibility, Recent
Subject Matter Eligibility Decision (Berkheimer v. HP, Inc.) (Apr. 19,
2018), available athttps://www.uspto.gov/sites/default/files/ documents/
memo-berkheimer-20180419.PDF. Using organization hierarchies to make
determinations “is an abstract idea that has no particular concrete or tangible
form or application. It is a building block, a basic conceptual framework for
organizing information.” Versata, Dev. Grp., Inc. v. SAP Am., Inc., 793
F.3d 1306, 1333–34 (Fed. Cir. 2015); Spec. ¶ 24 (hierarchical data structure
may be a preexisting data structure of an enterprise organization).
Thus, we sustain the rejection of claim 86 and claims 87–102, which
fall therewith, as ineligible under 35 U.S.C. § 101.
Appeal 2018-006757
Application 10/426,498

14
Claims 86–102 Rejected Over Loya and Rochelle
Appellant presents arguments only for claim 86. See Appeal Br. 10–
13. We select claim 86 as representative of the group with the other claims
standing or falling with claim 86. See 37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(1)(iv).
Regarding claim 86, the Examiner finds that Loya teaches a method as
recited in claim 86 of storing a hierarchical data structure representing an
organization and incentive distribution data generated by a set of plan rules
and receiving a modification of the incentive distribution data but fails to
teach a pending level of approval, traversing relationships in the hierarchical
data structure to a second leaf node via intermediary nodes, and determining
whether the second leaf node has approval authority for the modification.
Final Act. 5–6. The Examiner cites Rochelle for these features. Id. at 6.
The Examiner finds that Rochelle discloses an organizational workflow
process in which data flows from an intermediary node (e.g., a nominator) to
a subsequent node classified as having an approver role (i.e., a manager who
has authority to approve or decline the award). Ans. 8–9.
Appellant argues that claim 86 requires traversing one or more
intermediary nodes from the first leaf node to the second leaf node in the
hierarchical data structure, whereas Rochelle involves only a one-node hop
to obtain approval from one node (a nominator) to a subsequent node (a
manager). Reply Br. 4–5; Appeal Br. 11–12.
These arguments are not persuasive of error in the Examiner’s finding
that Rochelle navigates through multiple nodes beginning with a nominator
and traversing through the organization from the nominator to the nominee
and then to one or more managers who have authority to approve or deny the
award. Final Act. 6.
Appeal 2018-006757
Application 10/426,498

15
In this regard, the Examiner correctly finds that Rochelle teaches that
business organization hierarchies may require multiple levels to approve an
employee’s award including a manager and the next level manager and this
organizational hierarchy must be traversed from a nominated employee to
managers who are authorized to approve the award. Final Act. 6; Ans. 8–9.
The Specification describes the claimed Hierarchical Data Structure as
being used to navigate between members of a business object affected by an
incentive modification (first leaf node) and approval authorities (second leaf
nodes) in an organization via intermediate nodes. See Spec. ¶ 42, 57. Thus,
a modification affecting Business Object 210B in a western sales division
affects Business Objects 210G and 210H, which fall beneath Business
Object 210B in the structure as illustrated in Figure 2 reproduced above. Id.
The Specification discloses that approval of a modification may be sought
from several members of Business objects 210A–210W. Id. ¶¶ 41, 44, 45.
In a similar manner, Rochelle teaches that employee awards typically
require multiple approvals prior to granting the award and must be submitted
to an employee’s manger and then forwarded to the next level manager for
approval before being sent to the distributor responsible for the award. See
Rochelle ¶¶ 3, 5. An administrator verifies that the appropriate levels of
approval were obtained before the award is granted. Id. ¶ 3. Some awards
may be approved by a department manager while other awards are approved
at the general manager level or higher. Id. ¶¶ 134, 136, 187–200. Therefore,
we agree with the Examiner that Rochelle teaches to traverse intermediary
nodes in a hierarchical business organization (data structure) to identify the
managers at the highest levels (second node) who must approve an award
and the administrators and distributors who process the awards.
Appeal 2018-006757
Application 10/426,498

16
Based on these teachings of Rochelle, we disagree with Appellant’s
argument that Rochelle is a one-node hop that does not traverse between leaf
nodes via intermediary nodes. See Reply Br. 5. Instead, Rochelle traverses
a hierarchical business structure from an employee who is nominated for an
award through different levels of managers who must approve the award.
Rochelle ¶¶ 3, 4, 134, 136, 102–117, 187–200. The employee and highest
level manager may be considered leaf nodes and the intermediate managers
may be considered an intermediary node through which the system navigates
to seek approval of an employee’s award nomination. See id.; Ans. 8.
Rochelle also uses stored approval data separate from the hierarchical
data structure to determine which node has approval authority. Rochelle
¶¶ 102–117 (listing the approval authorities for different awards based on
amounts as department manager for smaller awards and general manager,
head of human relations, or manager of the entire business for increasingly
larger awards). The system ensures that the appropriate manager(s) approve
an award, which step corresponds to “determining whether the second node
[manager] in the hierarchical data structure has approval authority for the
modification using approval data stored separately from the hierarchical data
structure representing the organization” as claimed. See id. ¶¶ 3, 102–117.
Just as Rochelle determines approval authority based on the amount of
an award and verifies that authority by an administrator, the Specification
discloses that Approval Authority Data 135 is indicative of the authority of a
business object (node) to provide approval and can be based on a limit on a
dollar value of an approval that a particular business object can grant. Spec.
¶ 27. Thus, Rochelle teaches such stored approval authority, as claimed,
when this limitation is interpreted in light of the Specification.
Appeal 2018-006757
Application 10/426,498

17
Claim 86 also recites “a modification to the incentive distribution
data, wherein the modification is generated by a change to the incentive
distribution data or a change to the set of plan rules that generated the
incentive distribution data.” We interpret this limitation as an alternative
limitation that can be satisfied by a method that modifies either plan rules or
incentive distribution data that is generated according to the plan rules. This
meaning is supported by the Specification, which discloses modifications are
made to Plan Rules 140 or to Incentive Distribution Data 145, which are two
types of incentive allocation data. Spec. ¶¶ 28, 39, 56. “Plan Rules 140 are
representative of an incentive allocation plan configured for determining
Incentive Distribution Data 145 characterizing incentive distributions to
associated business objects.” Id. ¶ 28. “Additions or changes to Plan Rules
140 or Incentive Distribution Data 145 are events for which approval may be
sought and/or notice provided.” Id. Input for changes is made by a manager
or a compensation administrator. Id. ¶¶ 28–30, 39. Incentive Distribution
Data 145 are generated using Plan Rules 140 or by manual input. Id. ¶¶ 36,
38, 39. The modifications include addition of new Incentive Distribution
Data 145 and/or changes to existing Incentive Distribution Data 145. Id.
¶ 56. To provide notice of proposed incentive distributions, preliminary
Incentive Distribution Data 145 is generated. Id. ¶ 60. Notification to
members of Business Objects or supervisors provides a chance to review the
planned incentive distributions and approve, modify, or disapprove them
before the incentive distributions are actually made. Id. Thus, Incentive
Distribution Data 145 comprises incentive allocation data and includes the
actual allocations that are provided as incentives and awards. See Id. ¶ 62.

Appeal 2018-006757
Application 10/426,498

18
Rochelle’s method allows managers and others to approve incentive
awards nominations that correspond to the claimed incentive distribution
data. See Rochelle ¶¶ 93–131, 134, 175–200. A manager of a department
(comparable to the Business Object and other managers disclosed in the
Specification, see Spec. ¶¶ 29, 39, 45) may approve an award of a certain
amount, e.g., less than $1000. Rochelle ¶¶ 106, 107, 187, 188. If the award
(incentive distribution data) is a greater amount, e.g., between $1000 and
$2999, a department manager initially approves the award and the method
navigates from one leaf node (the department manager) to another leaf node
(the general manager) for final approval. Id. ¶¶ 109–111, 190–92. Awards
of larger amount, e.g., $3000 to $3999 are sent for approval by a department
manager and then to the head of human relations. Id. ¶¶ 112–114, 193–95.
Awards over $4000, are sent to the head of human relations and then to the
president of the entire business for approval. Id. ¶¶ 115–17, 196–98. This
method moves between leaf nodes via intermediate nodes to obtain approval.
Rochelle also teaches that the award incentive distribution data can be
modified by managers who may approve, decline, or modify an award and
award amount during the approval process. Id. ¶¶ 180, 199, 200, 118–129.
Thus, approval levels can be modified as one level of manager approves an
award amount, and another level of manager may approve, disapprove, or
modify the award, as claimed. Id. ¶¶ 106–127, 191–200. The original
approving manager is notified of modifications to the award made by other
manager levels. Id. ¶¶ 128, 199, 200. Thus, Rochelle teaches that the level
of approval changes as modifications are made to the amount of the award.
The modified level of approval for the modified award amount can approve
or decline the modification to the award amount and the award as claimed.
Appeal 2018-006757
Application 10/426,498

19
The Specification discloses Approval Authority Data 135 is indicative
of the authority of a business object (node) to provide approval and can be
based on a limit on a dollar value of an approval that a particular business
object can grant. Spec. ¶ 27. Rochelle teaches such approval authority as
discussed above. Rochelle’s method navigates through the hierarchical data
structure of the organization to identify the level(s) with approval authority,
which are stored separately. See Rochelle ¶¶ 83, 186–200.
In addition, Rochelle uses stored approval data that is separate from
the hierarchical data structure to determine whether a node (department or
manager level) has the appropriate approval authority. See id. ¶¶ 102–126
(listing approval authorities for different award amounts and their ability to
approve or change an award amount), 186–200 (same).
Appellant’s argument that “[t]here is no evidence that Rochelle’s
confirmation of a nomination involves a modification of the level of
approval for a modification at all” is not persuasive for several reasons.
First, merely reciting a claim limitation and asserting that Rochelle lacks this
feature does not provide effective argument. 37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(1)(iv).
Second, it does not address the evidence presented by the Examiner that
Rochelle does teach this feature and the other limitations of claim 86. See
Final Act. 6–7; Ans. 8–9. The portions of the Specification cited in the
Summary of Claimed Subject Matter (see Appeal Br. 15–17) describe this
feature as involving modifications to approval authority based on a specific
amount of award money that requires a specific level of approval or multiple
sources of approval (e.g., several people), some of whom may deny or
change the status of the award request. Spec. ¶¶ 41, 44, 48, 60. As
discussed above, Rochelle teaches this feature. See Rochelle ¶¶ 102–126.
Appeal 2018-006757
Application 10/426,498

20
To the extent Appellant urges us to interpret this limitation to mean
that the levels of approval stored in memory are changed in some manner,
we decline to do so because we find no support in the Specification for such
an interpretation. The Summary of Claimed Subject Matter in the Appeal
Brief cites paragraphs 30, 40, 41, 46–48, and 60 as support for this feature
along with Figure 3 (345, 350, 355) and Fig. 4 (450). See Appeal Br. 17.
Paragraph 30 describes Approval Engine 155 changing the status of a
modification from “Pending Approval” to “Approved” or “Not Approved.”
Paragraph 40 describes Approval Engine 155 being used to determine a level
of approval required for a modification to be re-characterized from Pending
to Approved and such approvals may be automatic or manual. Paragraph 41
describes how the type of approval required and approval authority varies by
the type of modification (e.g., amount of money) and includes a supervisor
of multiple sources (several people). Paragraph 46 describes how the system
determines whether a node has authority to approve a modification. “If the
authority is not sufficient the method continues to an Identify Business
Object Step 355.” Spec. ¶ 46. Paragraph 47 describes an Approve Change
Step 350 in which the status of a modification is changed from Pending to
Approved. Paragraph 48 describes how business objects are identified as
having approval authority for a pending modification. Paragraph 60
describes how notifications of events other than modifications to Plan Rules
140 and/or Incentive Distribution Data 145 are provided, e.g., information
about sales totals, bonuses, new incentives, quotas, successes, sales progress,
or the like. None of these passages changes the approval authority stored in
memory. Instead, they use those stored approval authorities to identify an
entity in the business hierarchy with approval authority for a modification.
Appeal 2018-006757
Application 10/426,498

21
As discussed above, Rochelle teaches this same method in which an
award of a particular amount may require multiple approval levels and any
level, including the “modified level of approval,” may approve, modify, or
disapprove the award in a similar manner as the Specification describes and
claim 86 recites. Rochelle’s “modifications” thus correspond to “modifying
. . . the level of approval for the modification stored in the memory” as the
approval level changes to reflect the amount of the modification to the award
amount, and the modified level of approval may approve, modify, or deny an
award, i.e., thus “approving or reversing the modification to the incentive
distribution data,” as claimed. See Rochelle ¶¶ 94–131, 175–200; Reply Br.
6. For example, a manager can approve an award below $1000. However,
if the award is $1000–$2999, the level of approval is modified so that this
manager who approves the award forwards the award for further approval by
a general manger. Rochelle ¶¶ 187–192. If the award is between $3000 and
$3999, the approval authority is modified to require further approval by the
department manager and human relations manager. Id. ¶¶ 193–95. Awards
of $4000 or more require further modification of the approval authority to
the organization’s president.2 Id. ¶¶ 196–98. Changes to award amounts by
an approval authority may require a different approval authority to be used.
Thus, we sustain the rejection of claim 86 and claims 87–102, which
fall therewith, as unpatentable over Loya and Rochelle.

2 These teachings of Rochelle and others discussed above also address the
arguments of Appellant that the claimed subject matter includes an inventive
step by providing data security by reversing unauthorized changes because
Rochelle’s method, like the claimed method, ensures the proper person(s)
with the appropriate level(s) of authority approve award modifications.
Thus, this step is taught as conventional in the art and merely involves
following the rules for approving modifications to plans and incentives.
Appeal 2018-006757
Application 10/426,498

22
CONCLUSION
In summary:
Claims
Rejected
Basis
35 U.S.C. §
Affirmed Reversed
86–102 101 86–102
86–102 103(a) Loya, Rochelle 86–102
Overall Outcome 86–102
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