Ex Parte Scheider

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Jan 27, 2017

12561365 (P.T.A.B. Jan. 27, 2017)

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.
12/561,365 09/17/2009 Pedro Cabrera Scheider Online Indicator/Metrics 2186
27316 7590 01/30/2017
MAYBACK & HOFFMAN, P.A.
5846 S. FLAMINGO ROAD #232
FORT LAUDERDALE, EL 33330
EXAMINER
KONERU, SUJAY
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
3624
MAIL DATE DELIVERY MODE
01/30/2017 PAPER
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.
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte PEDRO CABRERA SCHEIDER
Appeal 2014-007427
Application 12/561,365
Technology Center 3600
Before HUBERT C. LORIN, ANTON W. FETTING, and
BIBHU R. MOHANTY, Administrative Patent Judges.
MOHANTY, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
The Appellant seeks our review under 35 U.S.C. § 134 of the final
rejection of claims 1-20 which are all the claims pending in the application.
We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
SUMMARY OF THE DECISION
We AFFIRM.
Appeal 2014-007427
Application 12/561,365
THE INVENTION
The Appellant’s claimed invention is directed to a system and method
for evaluating and comparing businesses using a benchmarking tool (Spec.,
para. 2). Claim 1, reproduced below with the numbering in brackets added,
is representative of the subject matter on appeal.
1. A system for evaluating and comparing businesses, comprising:
[1] a server having at least one processor and at least one
computer-readable storage medium, the at least one computer-
readable storage medium having computer program instructions
configured to be executed by the at least one processor of the
server;
[2] an Internet-accessible portal having a graphic user-interface
wherein the portal is communicatively coupled to the server;
[3] one or more data figures that reflect operations of a user's
business wherein the one or more data figures are entered into the
portal by the user and are stored in the at least one computer-readable
storage medium;
[4] one or more metrics wherein the one or more metrics are
calculated by the at least one processor based upon the one or more
data figures and are indicative of the user's business operations;
[5] a group of one or more businesses similarly situated to the
user's business as defined by the user wherein the metrics of the one
or more similarly situated businesses are known and have been stored
in the at least one computer-readable storage medium;
[6] wherein a metric ranking number is assigned by the at least
one processor to the user's business and to each of the one or more
businesses of the group based upon their respective metrics;
[7] wherein one or more recommended benchmark values are
determined for the one or more data figures of the user's business
operations based upon the metrics of the one or more businesses of the
group; and
[8] wherein the metric ranking numbers of the user's business
and each of the one or more businesses of the group are displayed by
the at least one processor in a format viewable at the Intemet-
2
Appeal 2014-007427
Application 12/561,365
accessible portal wherein their respective metrics can be compared
against one another.
THE REJECTIONS
The following rejections are before us for review:
Claims 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable
over Eckert (US 2005/0154769 Al, published Jul. 14, 2005) and Farrell
(2008/0262882 Al, Oct. 23, 2008).
FINDINGS OF FACT
We have determined that the findings of fact in the Analysis section
below are supported at least by a preponderance of the evidence1.
ANALYSIS
The Appellants argue that the rejection of claim 1 is improper because
the cited prior art fails to disclose claim limitation [7] identified in the claim
above (Appeal Br. 22-27, Reply Br. 2-6).
In contrast, the Examiner has determined that the cited claim
limitation is found in Farrell at Figures 3, 4, and paras. 40 and 52 (Ans. 3, 4).
We agree with the Examiner. Here, the argued claim limitation [7]
requires
wherein one or more recommended benchmark values are determined
for the one or more data figures of the user's business operations based
upon the metrics of the one or more businesses of the group.
1 See Ethicon, Inc. v. Quigg, 849 F.2d 1422, 1427 (Fed. Cir. 1988)
(explaining the general evidentiary standard for proceedings before the
Patent Office).
3
Appeal 2014-007427
Application 12/561,365
(Claim 1). Thus, the claim requires that the recommended benchmark
values are determined using one or more data figures of the user’s business
operations and based on the metrics of the business. Farrell at paragraph 40
makes reference to and describes Figure 1. Farrell at Fig. 1 shows
presenting benchmarks (step 108) that are based on collected data from
business oriented metrics (122) and metrics from that business such as
volume, overhead, revenue, and profit (102) meeting the argued claim
limitation.
The Appellant has also made reference to TABLES 1 and 2 of the
Specification but these are specific embodiments which contain elements not
recited in the claim limitation at issue under a broadest reasonable
interpretation. The Appellant make reference to Farrell at Figures 3 and 4 as
not disclosing the cited claim limitation (Appeal Br. 23-25, Reply Br. 4, 5)
but as we have noted, the cited claim limitation is disclosed by Farrell at
paragraph 40 and its reference to Figure 1.
For these reasons the rejection of claim 1 is sustained. The
Appellants have presented the same arguments for the remaining claims and
the rejection of these claims is accordingly sustained as well.
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
We conclude that Appellants have not shown that the Examiner erred
in rejecting the claims as listed in the Rejection section above.
DECISION
The Examiner’s rejection of claims 1-20 is sustained.
4
Appeal 2014-007427
Application 12/561,365
No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with
this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a). See 37 C.F.R. §
1.136(a)(l)(iv).
AFFIRMED
5