Barry R. Beggs et al.Download PDFPatent Trials and Appeals BoardNov 7, 201914444490 - (D) (P.T.A.B. Nov. 7, 2019) Copy Citation 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. 14/444,490 07/28/2014 Barry R. Beggs Jr. RSW920140107US1 8180 75949 7590 11/07/2019 IBM CORPORATION C/O: Fabian Vancott 215 South State Street Suite 1200 Salt Lake City, UT 84111 EXAMINER WAESCO, JOSEPH M ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 3683 NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE 11/07/2019 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): patents@fabianvancott.com PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07) UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE ____________ BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD ____________ Ex parte BARRY R. BEGGS JR., FENG-WEI CHEN, BRETT GAVAGNI, DAVID G. GEORGE, and LUCIANO SILVA ____________ Appeal 2018-0070901 Application 14/444,490 Technology Center 3600 ____________ Before ELENI MANTIS MERCADER, NORMAN H. BEAMER, and GARTH D. BAER, Administrative Patent Judges. BAER, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL 1 We use the word “Appellant” to refer to “applicant” as defined in 37 C.F.R. § 1.42. Appellant identifies International Business Machines Corporation (“IBM”) as the real party in interest. Appeal Br. 2. Appeal 2018-007090 Application 14/444,490 2 STATEMENT OF THE CASE This is a decision on appeal, under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a), from the Examiner’s Final rejection of claims 8–25, which are all pending claims. Appeal Br. 4. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). We affirm. BACKGROUND A. The Invention Appellant’s invention is directed to providing “[m]atching resources to an opportunity in a customer relationship management (CRM) system.” Abstract. Independent claims 8, 14, and 21 are representative and reproduced below, with emphasis added to disputed elements: 8. A system for matching resources to an opportunity in a customer relationship management (CRM) system, the system comprising: at least one processor; a memory accessible to the processor; a network interface for communicating with the CRM system and a resources database listing resources; and an output for a display device; wherein the at least one processor and memory implement all of: an obtaining engine to obtain, from the customer relationship management (CRM) system, an opportunity record representing an opportunity associated with a current or potential customer, the opportunity record comprising a number of fields of metadata; an opportunity attribute determining engine to determine, from the metadata, a number of opportunity attributes associated with the opportunity, each opportunity attribute being a criterion for a specific sale associated with the opportunity; a resource attribute determining engine to determine a number of resource attributes for a number of the resources, each resource including a specific Appeal 2018-007090 Application 14/444,490 3 individual or organization that might potentially aid in progress of an opportunity through selling products or services; a ranking engine to compare, match and rank the resource attributes with the opportunity attributes to determine a score for each of the resources; an applying engine to selectively apply a weight to the score; and a presenting engine to present, based on the comparison of resource and opportunity attributes and the score, a list of the resources that match and are recommended for the opportunity. 14. A computer program product for matching resources to an opportunity in a customer relationship management (CRM) system, comprising: a non-transitory computer readable storage medium, said computer readable storage medium comprising computer readable program code embodied therewith, said computer readable program code comprising program instructions that, when executed, causes a processor to: determine, from metadata of an opportunity, a number of opportunity attributes associated with the opportunity; determine a number of resource attributes for a number of resources; rank the resource attributes with the opportunity attributes to determine a score for each of the resources; apply a weight to the score; and present, based on the score, a list of the resources that are recommended for the opportunity. 21. A system for matching resources to an opportunity in a customer relationship management (CRM) system, the system comprising: at least one processor; a memory accessible to the processor; Appeal 2018-007090 Application 14/444,490 4 a network interface for communicating with the CRM system and a resources database listing resources; and an output for a display device; wherein the at least one processor and memory implement all of: an obtaining engine to obtain, from the customer relationship management (CRM) system, an opportunity record representing an opportunity associated with a current or potential customer, the opportunity record comprising a number of fields of metadata; an opportunity attribute determining engine to determine, from the metadata, a number of opportunity attributes associated with the opportunity, each opportunity attribute being a criterion for a specific sale associated with the opportunity; a resource attribute determining engine to determine a number of resource attributes for a number of the resources, each resource including a specific individual or organization that might potentially aid in progress of an opportunity through selling products or services; a ranking engine to compare, match and rank the resource attributes with the opportunity attributes to determine a score for each of the resources, each score being a combined score comprising a motivation score indicating how incented a corresponding resource is to assist a customer associated with the opportunity, a proximity score indicating proximity between coverage of the corresponding resource and the customer associated with the opportunity, and a skill score indicating how relevant skills of the corresponding resource are to the opportunity, the ranking engine selectively applying a threshold for one or more of the motivation, proximity and skill scores, the threshold to be met for the corresponding resource to be matched to the opportunity; an applying engine to selectively apply a weight to any of the motivation proximity and skill scores to adjust the combined score; and Appeal 2018-007090 Application 14/444,490 5 a presenting engine to present, based on the comparison of resource and opportunity attributes and the score, a list of the resources that match and are recommended for the opportunity. Appeal Br. 30, 32, 34–35 (Claims Appendix). B. The Rejections on Appeal2 The Examiner rejects claims 8–25 under 35 U.S.C. § 101 because the claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception (i.e., a law of nature, a natural phenomenon, or an abstract idea) without significantly more. Final Act. 7. The Examiner rejects claims 8–25 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Potdar (US 2015/0112755 A1; Apr. 23, 2015), in view of Broderson (US 2005/0091098 A1; Apr. 28, 2005). Final Act. 11. ANALYSIS We have reviewed the Examiner’s rejections in light of Appellant’s arguments. Arguments Appellant could have made but chose not to make are waived. See 37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(1)(iv). Except where noted, we adopt the Examiner’s findings and conclusions as our own, and add the following primarily for emphasis. A. Ineligible Subject Matter Rejection of Claims 8–25 The Examiner determines claim 8 is patent ineligible under 35 U.S.C. § 101 “because the claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception (i.e., a law of nature, a natural phenomenon, or an abstract idea) without 2 The Final Action includes a provisional non-statutory double patenting rejection of claims 8–25, but this provisional rejection was removed in the Advisory Action. See Final Act. 5–7; Adv. Act. 3. Appeal 2018-007090 Application 14/444,490 6 significantly more.” Final Act. 7; see also Alice Corp. v. CLS Bank Int’l, 573 U.S. 208, 217 (2014) (describing the two-step framework “for distinguishing patents that claim laws of nature, natural phenomena, and abstract ideas from those that claim patent-eligible applications of those concepts”). After the docketing of this appeal, the USPTO published revised guidance on the application of § 101 (“Guidance”). See USPTO’s 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance, 84 Fed. Reg. 50 (Jan. 7, 2019) (“Memorandum”). Pursuant to the Guidance “Step 2A,” the office first looks to whether the claim recites: (1) Prong One: any judicial exceptions, including certain groupings of abstract ideas (i.e., mathematical concepts, certain methods of organizing human activity such as a fundamental economic practice, or mental processes); and (2) Prong Two: additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application (see MPEP § 2106.05(a)–(c), (e)–(h)). Only if a claim (1) recites a judicial exception and (2) does not integrate that exception into a practical application, does the Office then (pursuant to the Guidance “Step 2B”) look to whether the claim: (3) adds a specific limitation beyond the judicial exception that are 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. See Memorandum Section III. We are not persuaded the Examiner’s rejection is in error. Appeal 2018-007090 Application 14/444,490 7 1. Step 2A Appellant argues “the presently claimed subject matter comprises an improvement in a user interface for a CRM system” (Reply Br. 13), but does not dispute that the claims recite an abstract idea. See Appeal Br. 22–29, Reply Br. 13–20. Rather, Appellant contends that “the claimed subject matter improves the functioning of a CRM database by creating a new database or dataset in which resources are matched to and recommend for opportunities in the CRM database” and “this improvement to computer functionality can be recognized ‘even at the first step of the Alice analysis’ and the claim properly categorized as patent-eligible.” Reply Br. 17–18, citing Enfish, LLC v. Microsoft Corp., 822 F.3d 1327, 1335 (Fed. Cir. 2016). Prong One Pursuant to Step 2A, Prong One of the Guidance, we are not persuaded the Examiner erred in determining claims 8–25 recite an abstract idea. See Final Act. 7–10; Ans. 4–7; Memorandum Section III(A)(1) (Prong One: Evaluate Whether the Claim Recites a Judicial Exception), 84 Fed. Reg. at 54. Independent claims 8, 14, and 21 recite “matching resources to an opportunity in a customer relationship management (CRM) system.”3 A customer relationship management system is used to organize human activity surrounding sales and marketing. CRM can be understood as a revolving process during which companies interact with their customers, thereby generating, 3 We follow the Examiner’s analysis using independent claim 8 as representative; the analysis of the other independent claims yields the same result. Appeal 2018-007090 Application 14/444,490 8 aggregating, and analyzing customer data, and employing the results for service and marketing activities.4 CRM links the business relationship to the bottom line: companies “manage their customer relationships” to increase profitability by concentrating on the economically valuable customers, thus increasing revenue (“share of wallet”) from them, while possibly “de-marketing” and discontinuing the business relationship with less valuable customers.5 The Specification supports that claim 8 recites an abstract idea. It notes that the claimed “resource” is “meant to be understood broadly [as] a specific individual and/or organization that aids in the progression of an opportunity through selling products and/or services” (Spec. ¶ 29), and that “the term ‘opportunity attributes’ is meant to be understood broadly as criteria for a specific sale that is associated with an opportunity” (Spec. ¶ 28). Further, “opportunities may include a business’s sales and/or interaction with current customers, future customers, or combinations thereof.” Spec. ¶ 32. The “obtain[ing] . . . an opportunity record,” “determin[ing] . . . a number of opportunity attributes,” “determin[ing] . . . a number of resource attributes,” “compar[ing], match[ing], and rank[ing] . . . to determine a score,” and “selectively apply[ing] a weight” limitations of claim 8 recite the information processing steps used to connect the claimed “resources” with the claimed “opportunity.” These limitations accomplish the method of matching resources to an opportunity in a customer relationship management system, and are steps of “marketing or sales activities or behaviors; business 4 Schoder and Madeja, “Is Customer Relationship Management A Success Factor In Electronic Commerce?” J. of Elec. Commerce Research Vol. 5, No. 1, p. 38 (2004), available at: http://web.csulb.edu/journals/jecr/issues/20041/Paper4.pdf. 5 Id. Appeal 2018-007090 Application 14/444,490 9 relations.” Memorandum Section I, 84 Fed. Reg. at 52. Thus, this portion of the claim recites “commercial or legal interactions,” which are “[c]ertain methods of organizing human activity.” Id.; see also Spec. ¶¶ 28, 29, 32. Accordingly, claim 8 “recites a judicial exception . . . [and] requires further analysis in Prong Two” of the Guidance. Memorandum, 84 Fed. Reg. at 54. Prong Two We also are not persuaded the Examiner’s rejection is in error pursuant to Step 2A, Prong Two of the Guidance. The remaining limitation not considered in the Prong-One analysis above is “present[ing] . . . a list of the resources.” This step displays the data of the identified judicial exception, and is insignificant extra-solution activity. Memorandum, 84 Fed. Reg. at 55; see also n.31. The limitations, thus, represent the mere use of “a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea,” and “do[] no more than generally link the use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment.” Memorandum, 84 Fed. Reg. at 55; see also Final Act. 8–9; Trading Techs. Int’l, Inc. v. IBG LLC, 921 F.3d 1378, 1385 (Fed. Cir. 2019) (“[T]he purported advance is a process of gathering and analyzing information of a specified content, then displaying the results, and not any particular assertedly inventive technology for performing those functions.”) (citation and quotation marks omitted); Intellectual Ventures I LLC v. Capital One Bank (USA), 792 F.3d 1363, 1371 (Fed. Cir. 2015) (“Requiring the use of a software brain tasked with tailoring information and providing it to the user provides no additional limitation beyond applying an abstract idea, restricted to the Internet, on a generic computer.”) (internal quotation marks omitted). Appellant contends “[t]he system that creates an entirely new database using a novel approach, as recited in claim 21, is the technological Appeal 2018-007090 Application 14/444,490 10 improvement.” Reply Br. 16, citing McRO, Inc. v. Bandai Namco Games Am. Inc., 837 F.3d 1299 (Fed. Cir. 2016). However, claims 8, 14, and 21 do not recite creating a new database. In addition, Figures 4 and 5 (the figures illustrating the method of the invention) do not include a step creating a new database and Appellant points to nothing in the Specification that might support its assertion. In short, Appellant provides no factual support or technical reasoning for the purported improvements in computer functionality. See, e.g., In re Geisler, 116 F.3d 1465, 1470 (Fed. Cir. 1997) (attorney arguments or conclusory statements are insufficient to rebut a prima facie case); see also Trading Techs. Int’l, Inc. v. IBG LLC, No. 2017- 2257, 2019 WL 1716242, at *3 (Fed. Cir. April 18, 2019) (“This invention makes the trader faster and more efficient, not the computer. This is not a technical solution to a technical problem.”). Accordingly, we determine claim 8 does not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. See Memorandum, 84 Fed. Reg. at 54. As the “claim recites a judicial exception and fails to integrate the exception into a practical application” (id. at 51), “the claim is directed to the judicial exception” (id. at 54). 2. Step 2B Appellant argues “the fact that the most relevant art does not describe the claimed subject matter is probative evidence that such subject matter is not well-known, routine or conventional in the art.” Reply Br. 15. Appellant, however, has not shown the recited additional elements (or combination of elements) amount to significantly more than the judicial exception itself. See Final Act. 8–9, Ans. 5–7; Memorandum, Section III(B) (Step 2B), 84 Fed. Reg. at 56. The Examiner found Appeal 2018-007090 Application 14/444,490 11 the processor, memory, CRM, engines (code), etc. are all generic computing components, and no detail is given as to how any of these additional elements are improved or non- conventional in any way, and thus are generic. Ans. 7 (citing Spec. ¶¶ 42, 49). Based on the record before us, we agree with the Examiner that the claimed additional elements and combination of elements recite only generic components and steps that are well-understood, routine, and conventional. See Spec. ¶ 34–42; see also Alice, 573 U.S. at 226. Accordingly, we agree with the Examiner that claim 8 is patent ineligible. We conclude the same for independent claims 14 and 21, and dependent claims 9–13, 15–20, and 22–25 not separately argued. See Appeal Br. 22–29. B. Obviousness Rejection of Claims 8–25 Appellant argues each independent claim separately, and we consider each independent claim separately below, although where appropriate, we note where our analysis is applicable to multiple claims. 1. Obviousness Rejection of Independent Claim 14 Appellant argues that the subject matter of claim 14 requires the following elements: (1) an opportunity (with opportunity attributes), (2) a resource (with resource attributes), and (3) a user to whom is presented the resources recommended for a particular opportunity. Reply Br. 3. Appellant contends the Examiner improperly attempted “to construe one single element in Potdar as meeting two of these three claimed elements and/or switch[ed] construction mid-stream when the logical inconsistency is noted.” Reply Br. 3–4, citing Ex parte Weideman, No. 2008-003454; Appeal No. 10/035,334 (BPAI Jan. 27, 2009). Appeal 2018-007090 Application 14/444,490 12 We do not find this argument persuasive. Claim 14 recites no “user” and contains no limitation regarding who “the list of resources” is “present[ed]” to. The Examiner’s finding that Potdar’s user “is a resource to the company” (Ans. 2–3) is reasonable, and further comports with the Specification’s disclosure that “the term ‘resource’ is meant to be understood broadly as a specific individual and/or organization that aids in the progression of an opportunity through selling products and/or services.” Spec. ¶ 28 (emphasis added). Appellant’s related argument that Potdar’s scenario has “no discussion of a resource that is also being matched to the opportunity” (Reply Br. 6) is not persuasive given that Potdar matches a “user” to a “business lead.” Appellant further contends that claim 14 “start[s] with the metadata of an opportunity and from that derive[s] attributes of the opportunity” (Reply Br. 6) whereas Potdar “start[s] with data/inputs that are then used to identify or arrive at an opportunity” and is “the opposite of what is claimed.” Reply Br. 7, citing Potdar ¶ 6. We do not find this argument persuasive. The Examiner found, and we agree, that Potdar teaches receiving “information from [a] CRM which is a specific existing customer whose current contract is due to expire, an opportunity associated with a current customer” (Final Act. 11–12), and “this is data about data (i.e. metadata).” Final Act. 12. Opportunity attributes, such as the “fields for a database” as exemplified in Potdar paragraphs 43–51, are then determined. Final Act. 12. The Examiner’s findings are further confirmed by Potdar, in which business opportunity information (corresponding to opportunity attributes) is sought based on identifying existing “High Margin Customers” (metadata used to identify high margin customers). See Potdar ¶ 39. Appeal 2018-007090 Application 14/444,490 13 Accordingly, we sustain the Examiner’s rejection of independent claim 14 and dependent claims 15–20, not argued separately. See Reply Br. 3–7; App. Br. 12–16. 2. Obviousness Rejection of Claim 8 Appellant argues “[c]laim 8 distinguishes over the cited combination of Potdar and Broderson for all of the same reasons given above in favor of claim 14.” Reply Br. 8. Appellant’s argument is not persuasive, for the reasons given above with respect to claim 8. Specifically, regarding claim 8, Appellant argues that Potdar fails to disclose the limitation “each resource including a specific individual or organization that might potentially aid in progress of an opportunity through selling products or services,” because “Potdar does not even deal with resources at all, but merely prioritizes business leads by location for a user.” Reply Br. 8. Appellant further contends that the combination of Potdar and Broderson fails to teach or suggest the claimed “presenting engine” that “presents . . . a list of the resources that match and are recommended for the opportunity.” Reply Br. 9. We do not find these arguments persuasive. The Examiner found, and we agree, that Potdar teaches specific organizations, i.e. vendors/suppliers, in [Potdar ¶¶ 50–51], which are attributes being used in the matching of resources to opportunities, which aids in the progress as they sell the products and services necessary for the opportunity, and these are specific to the opportunity and for sales. Ans. 3. Nothing in claim 8 precludes both the claimed “resources” and claimed “opportunity” from encompassing an individual or organization, as Potdar teaches. Here, the Examiner correctly found Potdar’s “Vendors of Appeal 2018-007090 Application 14/444,490 14 Customer” and “Suppliers of Customer” are part of the claimed “resource,” particularly when such individuals or organizations “might potentially aid in progress of an opportunity through selling products or services,” as the claim requires. Further, one skilled in the art would consider individuals or organizations such as vendors and suppliers as potentially wearing several hats, such as “resource” and “business opportunity,” because “[b]usiness entities are continuously seeking to identify promising new business opportunities.” Potdar ¶ 2. Appellant’s argument that the combination of Potdar and Broderson fails to teach or suggest the claimed “presenting engine” that “presents . . . a list of the resources that match and are recommended for the opportunity” is not persuasive, as it is attorney argument with no factual support. See Reply Br. 18; see, e.g., In re Geisler, 116 F.3d 1465, 1470 (attorney arguments or conclusory statements are insufficient to rebut a prima facie case). Further, Appellant has not shown how the recited “presenting engine” achieves unexpected results or was outside the capabilities of one of ordinary skill in the art. Using such an engine to display resources and opportunities is a combination of familiar elements according to known methods that yields “predictable results.” See KSR Int’l., Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 416–417 (2007); cf. In re Kuhle, 526 F.2d 553, 555 (CCPA 1975) (“the particular placement of the contact provides no novel or unexpected result,” rather, it is “an obvious matter of design choice within the skill of the art . . . . [as the] use of a spring-loaded contact in the manner claimed is well known with the common flashlight”). Accordingly, we sustain the Examiner’s rejection of independent claim 8 and dependent claims 9–13, not argued separately. See Reply Br. 8– 9, Appeal Br. 17–18. Appeal 2018-007090 Application 14/444,490 15 3. Obviousness Rejection of Claim 21 Appellant argues that the combination of Potdar and Broderson does not teach or suggest a number of limitations in claim 21. Appellant argues the combination of Potdar and Broderson fails to teach or suggest the claimed “opportunity attribute engine” because Potdar “us[es] input to arrive at an opportunity.” Reply Br. 10. This argument parallels the argument presented above for claim 8 in which Appellant contends “Potdar” “start[s] with data/inputs that are then used to identify or arrive at an opportunity” and is not persuasive for similar reasons discussed above. Appellant argues the combination of Potdar and Broderson fails to teach or suggest “each opportunity attribute being a criterion for a specific sale associated with the opportunity” because “the Answer fails to address this portion of claim 21.” Reply Br. 11; see also Appeal Br. 19. We do not find this argument persuasive. The Examiner found, and we agree, that for the cited limitation, Potdar teaches the engine automatically generates score, lead name, contact information, etc. which are attributes associated with the opportunity such as in applicant’s specification in [¶ 28] where the attributes may include client (lead name), location, etc., and thus a criterion for the opportunity, also exemplified in the attributes of [Potdar ¶¶ 43–49]. Final Act. 12, citing Potdar ¶ 6. We find no error in the Examiner’s detailed findings, and Appellant does not address the Examiner’s findings in the Appeal or Reply. See Appeal Br. 19, Reply Br. 11. Appellant argues the combination of Potdar and Broderson fails to teach or suggest “a resource attribute determining engine to determine a number of resource attributes for a number of the resources” because Appeal 2018-007090 Application 14/444,490 16 “Potdar merely describes ranking business opportunities by location.” Reply Br. 11 (citing Final Act. 12; Potdar ¶ 66). We do not find this argument persuasive. The Examiner found, and we agree, that Potdar teaches the engine determines leads based on territory, which is a resource attribute, such as Asia and Europe for different resources, with [Potdar ¶¶ 50–51] being vendors/suppliers of customers which is used in progress of an opportunity as they sell products/services). Final Act. 12 (citing Potdar ¶ 66). Here, a resource attribute (territory) is determined for vendor/suppliers (a resource), and while the claim recites a “a number of resource attributes for a number of the resources,” the claim requires no plurality of resource attributes and resources; the “number” may be equal to one. Appellant argues the combination of Potdar and Broderson fails to teach or suggest “each resource including a specific individual or organization that might potentially aid in progress of an opportunity through selling products or services.” Reply Br. 11. This argument parallels the argument presented above for claim 8 in which Appellant contends “Potdar does not even deal with resources at all, but merely prioritizes business leads by location for a user” and is not persuasive for similar reasons discussed above. Appellant argues the combination of Potdar and Broderson fails to teach or suggest “a motivation score indicating how incented a corresponding resource is to assist a customer associated with the opportunity” because the cited portion of Potdar “is describing using inputs, such as a drug shortage and high margin to identify an opportunity.” Reply Br. 12 (citing Final Act. 12; Potdar ¶¶ 80–81). Appeal 2018-007090 Application 14/444,490 17 We do not find this argument persuasive, as the example cited by Potdar in which a high “lead score” based on a market experiencing a shortage (see Potdar ¶ 81) indicates a higher motivation for a resource (to make a sale) that prioritizes a higher probability of sales (because of a shortage) over a higher margin per sale. Further, to the extent Appellant argues additional terms appearing in the claimed “ranking engine,” Appellant only addresses Potdar, rather than the combination of Potdar and Broderson. Appellant argues the combination of Potdar and Broderson fails to teach or suggest “the ranking engine selectively applying a threshold for one or more of the motivation, proximity and skill scores, the threshold to be met for the corresponding resource to be matched to the opportunity” (Reply Br. 13), because the Final Rejection “does not address a score threshold that must be met for a corresponding resource to be matched to an opportunity.” Reply Br. 13. We do not find this argument persuasive. The Examiner found, and we agree, that Broderson teaches: to apply a weigh[t] to the score or ranking as in [Broderson ¶ 45] where weights are assigned to scores for opportunities. utilizing a threshold for the score as in [Broderson ¶ 50] for comparison purposes, which are selective as the rules may be selected for “best fit” or “random fit” for the threshold. and a skill score indicating how relevant skills of the corresponding resource are to the opportunity ([Broderson ¶ 48] a skill score is based on employee skill sets and product expertise as in applicant’s specification [Spec. ¶ 79] where there is specific brand (product) expertise). Final Act. 13. The Examiner further found, and we agree, that Appeal 2018-007090 Application 14/444,490 18 it is well-known in the art to apply a weight to score, and the combination would lead to a more accurate score due to the weighting, and it is also well-known in the art to apply a threshold in comparisons, and the combination would lead to a minimal score, and thus provide better opportunities to the closest matching person [Broderson ¶ 9]. Final Act. 13. Appellant has not persuasively provided arguments or technical evidence to rebut the Examiner’s detailed findings. See, e.g., In re Geisler, 116 F.3d 1465, 1470 (attorney arguments or conclusory statements are insufficient to rebut a prima facie case). Accordingly, we sustain the Examiner’s rejection of independent claim 21 and dependent claims 22–25, not argued separately. See Reply Br. 9–13; Appeal Br. 18–22. CONCLUSION In summary: 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 Claims Rejected 35 U.S.C. § Reference(s)/Basis Affirmed Reversed 8–25 101 8–25 8–25 103 Potdar, Broderson 8–25 Overall Outcome 8–25 Copy with citationCopy as parenthetical citation