Ex Parte Akkiraju et alDownload PDFPatent Trial and Appeal BoardJul 28, 201613347429 (P.T.A.B. Jul. 28, 2016) Copy Citation UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE 13/347,429 01/10/2012 48915 7590 08/01/2016 CANTOR COLBURN LLP-IBM YORKTOWN 20 Church Street 22nd Floor Hartford, CT 06103 FIRST NAMED INVENTOR Rama K.T. Akkiraju 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 ATTORNEY DOCKET NO. CONFIRMATION NO. YOR920100129US2 8687 EXAMINER GURSKI, AMANDA KAREN ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 3623 NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE 08/01/2016 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): usptopatentmail@cantorcolbum.com PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07) UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD Ex parte RAMA K.T. AKKIRAm, INDRAJIT DEBROY, SWEEFEN GOH, NAGESH K. MANTRIPRAGADA, NITINCHANDRA R. NAY AK, PRIY A PRASAD, MANISHA SRIVASTAVA, and ROBERT G. TOROK Appeal2014-005142 1 Application 13/347,429 Technology Center 3600 Before: MURRIEL E. CRAWFORD, JOSEPH A. FISCHETTI, and MICHAEL W. KIM, Administrative Patent Judges. KIM, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL STATEMENT OF CASE This is an appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Examiner's Final Rejection of claims 1 and 5-12, which constitute all the claims pending in this application. We have jurisdiction to review the case under 35 U.S.C. §and 6(b). We REVERSE. 1 The Appellants identify International Business Machines Corp. as the real party in interest. Appeal Br. 2. Appeal2014-005142 Application 13/347,429 The invention relates generally to enterprise risk analysis. Spec., para. 2. Claim 1 is illustrative and is reproduced below: 1. A system in which multiple sub-organizations are part of a parent organization and participate in common risk management, the system comprising: combinations of software and hardware formed as a first sub-system, a second sub-system and a third sub-system, the first sub-system being configured such that each sub- organization provides a risk assessment based on a specific risk scale associated with each sub-organization; the second sub-system being configured such that the risk assessment of each sub-organization is converted into a risk assessment of the parent organization based on a risk scale of the parent organization, the risk scale of the parent organization being different from the specific risk scales of each sub- organization, and the third sub-system being configured such that the respective risk assessments of the sub-organizations and the parent organization are employed for risk map generation and display, risk aggregation database generation and risk reporting. Claims 1 and 6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Eder (US 2004/0215551 Al, pub. Oct. 28, 2004), DelZoppo (US 2011/0054961 Al, pub. Mar. 3, 2011), and Jacobi (US 2005/0228622 Al, pub. Oct. 13, 2005). Claim 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Eder, DelZoppo, Jacobi, and Owens (US 7,593,859 Bl, iss. Sept. 22, 2009). 2 Appeal2014-005142 Application 13/347,429 Claim 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Eder, De1Zoppo2, Jacobi, and Clater (US 2006/0173762 Al, pub. Aug. 3, 2006). Claim 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Eder, Owens, and DelZoppo. Claims 9-11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Eder, Owens, De1Zoppo3, and Jacobi. Claim 12 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Eder, Owens, De1Zoppo4, and Clater. We REVERSE. ANALYSIS Each of independent claims 1 and 8 recite "the risk scale of the parent organization being different from the specific risk scales of each sub- organization." We are persuaded by Appellants' arguments that the combinations of references, and specifically DelZoppo, fail to disclose or suggest that different risk scales are used for the parent and each sub organization, from 2 We take as inadvertent error the omission of DelZoppo in the statement of rejection at page 8 of the Final Action, because DelZoppo is relied upon in the rejection of claim 1, from which claim 7 depends. 3 We take as inadvertent error the omission of DelZoppo in the statement of rejection at page 12 of the Final Action, because DelZoppo is relied upon in the rejection of claim 8, from which claim 9 depends. Claims 10 and 11 depend from claim 9. 4 We take as inadvertent error the omission of DelZoppo in the statement of rejection at page 14 of the Final Action, because DelZoppo is relied upon in the rejection of claim 8, from which claim 12 depends ultimately. 3 Appeal2014-005142 Application 13/347,429 which a conversion of risk scales is performed, as claimed. Appeal Br. 5---6; see also Reply Br. 1--4. In rejecting each of claims 1 and 8, the Examiner cites to paragraph 29 of DelZoppo in support of the use of different risk scales. DelZoppo discloses: The Organizational Risk Assessment 220 is a report to the user that contains information about the risk of a particular potential threat or information about business-wide risks. Organizational Risk Assessment 220 can be a risk analysis at the organization level, sub-organization level for a target population, or at the individual level, depending on the needs of the user. DelZoppo, para. 29. This cited section does not disclose any risk scale. Putting the disclosure in a light most favorable to the Examiner, the Examiner could be asserting that "information about the risk of a particular potential threat or information about business-wide risks" could be a risk scale, however, no such analysis is provided, and we discern this disclosure could just merely be referring to a list of risks; which we do not find is commensurate with a "risk scale." Thus, we are unpersuaded that DelZoppo paragraph 29 discloses any risk scale, and, consequently, DelZoppo further fails to disclose that different risk scales are utilized, as required by the claims. The other references are not cited for remedying this deficiency of DelZoppo. Accordingly, for these reasons, we do not sustain the obviousness rejections of independent claims 1 and 8. Furthermore, because the Examiner has not established on the record that any of Eder, Owens, Jacobi, or Clater remedy the shortcomings of the cited section of DelZoppo, we also do not sustain the rejections under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) of dependent claims 5-7 and 9-12 that depend ultimately from independent claims 1 or 8. 4 Appeal2014-005142 Application 13/347,429 DECISION We REVERSE the rejections under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) of claims 1 and 5-12. REVERSED 5 Copy with citationCopy as parenthetical citation