Ex Parte Adendorff et al

Patent Trial and Appeal BoardDec 11, 2012

10663345 (P.T.A.B. Dec. 11, 2012)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE 1 ___________ 2 3 BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD 4 ___________ 5 6 Ex parte MICHAEL ADENDORFF, 7 TOM FAZAL, 8 and SIMON PALMER 9 ___________ 10 11 Appeal 2011-003190 12 Application 10/663,345 13 Technology Center 3600 14 ___________ 15 16 17 Before ANTON W. FETTING, JOSEPH A. FISCHETTI, and 18 MICHAEL W. KIM, Administrative Patent Judges. 19 20 FETTING, Administrative Patent Judge. 21 22 23 DECISION ON APPEAL24 Appeal 2011-003190 Application 10/663,345 2 STATEMENT OF THE CASE1 1 Michael Adendorff, Tom Fazal, and Simon Palmer (Appellants) seek 2 review under 35 U.S.C. § 134 of a final rejection of claims 1, 7-9, 14-16, 3 20, 22, 24, 25, 27, 33-35, 40, 45, 47, 49, 50, 52, and 55, the only claims 4 pending in the application on appeal. We have jurisdiction over the appeal 5 pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). 6 The Appellants invented a way for monitoring business performance 7 (Spec. 1:3-4). 8 An understanding of the invention can be derived from a reading of 9 exemplary claim 1, which is reproduced below (bracketed matter and some 10 paragraphing added). 11 1. A performance monitoring system comprising: 12 [1] a staging area 13 receiving data 14 from one or more data sources; 15 [2] a KPI store 16 storing performance information 17 relating to Key Performance Indicators (KPIs); 18 [3] a loader 19 transforming the received data 20 into the performance information relating to the 21 KPIs, 22 calculating scores based on 23 the received data 24 and 25 the performance information stored in the KPI 26 store 27 to indicate changes in the KPIs 28 1 Our decision will make reference to the Appellants’ Appeal Brief (“App. Br.,” filed April 21, 2010) and the Examiner’s Answer (“Ans.,” mailed August 6, 2010). Appeal 2011-003190 Application 10/663,345 3 such that the scores indicate if associated KPIs are 1 getting better, worse, or is unchanged, 2 and 3 loading the performance information including the scores 4 into the KPI store; 5 and 6 [4] an information presentation unit 7 presenting the performance information to a user, 8 wherein the information presentation unit has a front-end 9 interface 10 having a data guided monitoring function 11 that receives a user input 12 and 13 presents relevant performance information 14 in a selected order 15 based on the user input 16 to allow the user 17 to monitor and analyze the 18 performance information 19 using the scores, 20 wherein the staging area receives a target value and an 21 actual value for a KPI, 22 and 23 wherein the loader calculates a score for the KPI 24 based on the actual value and the target value 25 to indicate if the KPI is good, bad or neutral 26 compared to the target value, 27 and 28 calculates another score 29 by comparing 30 the calculated score 31 and 32 a previously calculated score 33 for a previous comparison of a 34 previous actual value to the target 35 value, 36 the previously calculated score being 37 calculated and stored in the KPI store 38 at a previous loading, 39 Appeal 2011-003190 Application 10/663,345 4 so that the another score indicates 1 if the KPI is getting better, worse, or is 2 unchanged. 3 The Examiner relies upon the following prior art: 4 Sands WO 01/88769 A1 Nov. 22, 2001 5 Pokorny US 2003/0150908 A1 Aug. 14, 2003 6 Thompson US 6,668,253 B1 Dec. 23, 2003 7 8 Claims 1, 7-9, 20, 27, 33-35, 45, and 52 stand rejected under 35 9 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Thompson and Sands. 10 Claims 14-16, 22, 24-25, 40, 47, 49-50, and 55 stand rejected under 11 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Thompson, Sands, and Pokorny. 12 13 ISSUES 14 The issues of obviousness turn on whether Sands describes the 15 calculations recited in limitation [4]. 16 17 FACTS PERTINENT TO THE ISSUES 18 The following enumerated Findings of Fact (FF) are believed to be 19 supported by a preponderance of the evidence. 20 Facts Related to the Prior Art 21 Sands 22 01. Sands is directed to business modeling and performance analysis. 23 Sands 1:3-9. 24 02. A local deviation Di for each KPI is calculated by comparing the 25 converted actual output Wi with the calculated budget output Bi. 26 The local deviations are stored and summed to provide total 27 Appeal 2011-003190 Application 10/663,345 5 deviations Di.tot at the sub-component, component, unit, and/or 1 business level. At the business level the total deviation Di.tot is 2 compared to a threshold T to determine if the business is operating 3 within acceptable limits. Sands 10:17-22. 4 5 ANALYSIS 6 We are persuaded by the Appellants’ argument that 7 nowhere in Sands is there any teaching, or even technical 8 rationale, provided for implementing in Sands the features of a 9 loader calculating a score for a KPI based on the actual value 10 and the target value to indicate if the KPI is good, bad or 11 neutral compared to the target value, and comparing the 12 calculated score and a previously calculated score for a 13 previous comparison of a previous actual value to the target 14 value, the previously calculated score being calculated and 15 stored in the KPI store at a previous loading, so that the 16 another score indicates if the KPI is getting better, worse, or is 17 unchanged. 18 Appeal Br. 9-10. The Examiner found that Thompson described an overall 19 structure as in the claims, but not the particular calculations recited in 20 limitation [4]. The Examiner relied on Sands for these calculations. As 21 Appellants argue, however, Sands never compares the individual differences 22 themselves at different points in time, but instead totals the individual 23 differences for comparison at a total level. FF 02. All independent claims 24 contain a similar limitation. 25 CONCLUSIONS OF LAW 26 The rejection of claims 1, 7-9, 20, 27, 33-35, 45, and 52 under 35 27 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Thompson and Sands is improper. 28 Appeal 2011-003190 Application 10/663,345 6 The rejection of claims 14-16, 22, 24-25, 40, 47, 49-50, and 55 under 1 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Thompson, Sands, and Pokorny is 2 improper. 3 DECISION 4 The rejection of claims 1, 7-9, 14-16, 20, 22, 24, 25, 27, 33-35, 40, 45, 5 47, 49, 50, 52, and 55 is reversed. 6 7 REVERSED 8 9 10 hh 11