Barry R. Beggs et al.

Patent Trials and Appeals Board

Nov 7, 2019

14444490 - (D) (P.T.A.B. Nov. 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.
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