Ex Parte Lee et alDownload PDFPatent Trial and Appeal BoardApr 2, 201311200847 (P.T.A.B. Apr. 2, 2013) Copy Citation UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE ____________________ BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD ____________________ Ex parte JUHNYOUNG LEE, GRACE Y. LIN, KO-YANG WANG, and CLAUDIA L. WOODY ____________________ Appeal 2011-007007 Application 11/200,847 Technology Center 3600 ____________________ Before ANTON W. FETTING, NINA L. MEDLOCK, and JAMES A. TARTAL, Administrative Patent Judges. MEDLOCK, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL Appeal 2011-007007 Application 11/200,847 2 STATEMENT OF THE CASE Appellants appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Examiner’s final rejection of claims 1, 3-6, 9, 10, 12, 14-16, 19-21, and 23-28. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). STATEMENT OF THE DECISION We AFFIRM.1 BACKGROUND Appellants’ invention relates to a method and system for managing business solutions, and more particularly, to a method and system that evaluate business solutions based on a corresponding business value for each business solution (Spec., para. [0002]). Claim 1, reproduced below, is representative of the subject matter on appeal: 1. A method of evaluating a set of business solutions, the method comprising: generating the set of business solutions based on a business pain point and a business model for a target enterprise, wherein the business model includes a set of business concerns, wherein each of the set of business solutions comprises at least one modification to at least one attribute of the set of business concerns for a target enterprise and wherein each business concern comprises one of: a business process, a business activity, a business component, a resource, or a relationship 1 Our decision will make reference to the Appellants’ Appeal Brief (“Br.,” filed August 27, 2010) and the Examiner’s Answer (“Ans.,” mailed October 6, 2010). Appeal 2011-007007 Application 11/200,847 3 between a plurality of business concerns for the target enterprise; obtaining a value model that comprises a unique value for each of the set of business concerns and relationship information for the set of business concerns, wherein each unique value comprises a relative change to a value provided by the corresponding business concern and wherein the relationship information includes a relative contribution that a first business concern provides to a second business concern; determining a business value for each of the set of business solutions by processing the value model using at least one computing device, wherein the processing includes determining a value provided by each of the at least one modification for each of the set of business solutions using the value model and combining the value provided by each of the at least one modification for a corresponding business solution; prioritizing the set of business solutions based on their corresponding business values; and providing the set of business solutions for review. THE REJECTIONS The following rejections are before us for review: Claims 1, 3, 4, 9, 12, 14, 19, and 28 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Gallacci (US 2003/0229526 A1, pub. Dec. 11, 2003) in view of Ulwick (US 6, 115,691, iss. Sep. 5, 2000). Claims 5 and 15 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Gallacci in view of Ulwick and further in view of Klein (US 2004/0006399 A1, pub. Jan. 8, 2004). Appeal 2011-007007 Application 11/200,847 4 Claims 6 and 16 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Gallacci in view of Ulwick and in view of Klein and further in view of Ruffin (US 6,526,387 B1, iss. Feb. 25, 2003). Claims 10 and 20 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Gallacci in view of Ulwick and further in view of Adler (US 2002/0169658 A1, pub. Nov. 14, 2002). Claims 21 and 23-25 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Gallacci in view of Ulwick and further in view of Heyns (US 2004/0073442 A1, pub. Apr. 15, 2004). Claim 26 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Gallacci in view of Ulwick and in view of Heyns, and further in view of Klein. Claim 27 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Gallacci in view of Ulwick and in view of Heyns and Klein, and further in view of Ruffin. ANALYSIS Independent claim 1 and dependent claims 3-6, 9, and 10 Appellants argue that the Examiner erred in rejecting claim 1 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) because the combination of Gallacci and Ulwick fails to teach or suggest “obtaining a value model that comprises . . . relationship information for the set of business concerns, . . . wherein the relationship information includes a relative contribution that a first business concern provides to a second business concern,” as recited in claim 1 (Br. 9-10). The Examiner responds that the rejection is proper, and cites Figures 4-11 and paragraphs [0044] and [0045] of Gallacci as disclosing this Appeal 2011-007007 Application 11/200,847 5 feature (Ans. 4 and 17). In this regard, the Examiner maintains that Figures 4-8 of Gallacci show how each potential solution is assessed for multiple business concerns and that paragraphs [0044] and [0045] disclose the contribution that one business concern provides to another business concern, such as the relative contribution that a customer’s business size provides to the customer’s reliance on the supplier’s sophistication and infrastructure (Ans. 4 and 17). We have reviewed the cited portions of Gallacci relied on by the Examiner, and we conclude that the Examiner’s findings are reasonable and supported. In particular, we note that Gallacci assesses potential solutions based on the size of the customer organization in Figure 4 and that the customer’s responses regarding its infrastructure and practices are reflected in Figure 7 of Gallacci. We also are not persuaded by Appellants’ argument that the combination of Gallacci and Ulwick fails to teach or suggest “generating the set of business solutions based on a business pain point and a business model . . .wherein the business model includes a set of business concerns,” as recited in claim 1 (Br. 10-12). Instead, we agree with the Examiner that Gallacci discloses this feature with reference to Figures 4-11 and paragraphs [0056] through [0064] (Ans. 18). Gallacci discloses a computer-based system and method to enable a component supplier to provide supply chain service solutions that meet the needs and requirements of its customer. The customer’s supply chain needs and requirements and other customer metrics (i.e., business concerns and business pain points) are obtained via the customer’s responses to various information requests. Each response to an information request is mapped to Appeal 2011-007007 Application 11/200,847 6 a table (e.g., Figures 4-10) containing supply chain service solutions appropriate for the response. The table also provides a value (to the customer) weight and a risk (to the supplier) weight associated with implementing the supply chain service solutions. These results are combined to provide a set of four possible business solutions, i.e., I, G, F, and D, as well as a graphical assessment of the associated risk versus the value, as shown in Figure 11 (see Gallacci, Abstract, Figures 4-11 and paragraphs [0056] through [0064]). Appellants’ further argument that the combination of Gallacci and Ulwick fails to teach or suggest “combining the value provided by each of the at least one modification for a corresponding business solution,” as recited in claim 1, also is unpersuasive (Br. 12). Instead, we agree with the Examiner that Gallacci presents a corresponding value for each business solution program with respect to a specific business modification, e.g., Figure 6 shows value factors for inventory and labor force reductions, and these value factors are combined in tab 208a (Figure 11) for possible solutions I, G, F, and D (Ans. 19). In view of the foregoing, we sustain the Examiner’s rejection of claim 1 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a). We also sustain the Examiner’s rejection of claims 3-6, 9, and 10, which were not separately argued. Independent claims 12, 21, and 28 and dependent claims 14-16, 19, 20, and 23-27 Appellants’ arguments with respect to independent claims 12, 21, and 28 are substantially identical to Appellants’ arguments with respect to claim 1. Therefore, we sustain the Examiner’s rejection of claims 12, 21, Appeal 2011-007007 Application 11/200,847 7 and 28 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) for the same reasons as set forth above with respect to claim 1. We also sustain the Examiner’s rejection of dependent claims 14-16, 19, 20, and 23-27, which were not separately argued. DECISION The Examiner’s rejection of claims 1, 3-6, 9, 10, 12, 14-16, 19-21, and 23-28 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) is affirmed. 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). AFFIRMED Klh Copy with citationCopy as parenthetical citation