Ex Parte Hoogs et alDownload PDFPatent Trial and Appeal BoardFeb 26, 201310890836 (P.T.A.B. Feb. 26, 2013) Copy Citation UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE ____________ BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD ____________ Ex parte BETHANY KNIFFIN HOOGS, DENIZ SENTURK, and CHRISTINA ANN LACOMB ____________ Appeal 2011-006804 Application 10/890,836 Technology Center 3600 ____________ Before: MURRIEL E. CRAWFORD, MICHAEL W. KIM, and NINA L. MEDLOCK, Administrative Patent Judges. KIM, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL Appeal 2011-006804 Application 10/890,836 2 STATEMENT OF THE CASE This is an appeal from the final rejection of claims 1-9, 12, 13, 23-28, and 301. We have jurisdiction to review the case under 35 U.S.C. §§ 134 and 6. The invention relates generally to monitoring the financial health of a business entity and more specifically to a method and system for inferring business risk information and detecting business behavioral patterns related to a business entity (Spec., para. [0001]). Claim 1, reproduced below, is further illustrative of the claimed subject matter. 1. A method for detecting business behavioral patterns related to a business entity comprising: determining a model on a computer system for business behavioral patterns in which the likelihood of a particular business behavioral pattern is associated with the occurrence of at least one qualitative event and at least one quantitative metric; extracting a first data set representing the occurrence of the at least one qualitative event associated with the business entity from a first data source tangibly embodied in a computer- readable media of the computer system; extracting a second data set representing the at least one quantitative metric associated with the business entity from a second data source tangibly embodied in the computer-readable media of the computer system; determining a first confidence attribute and a first temporal attribute associated with the at least one qualitative event using a memory device of the computer system; 1 Our decision will make reference to the Appellants’ Appeal Brief (“App. Br.,” filed October 12, 2010) and the Examiner’s Answer (“Ans.,” mailed December 8, 2010). Appeal 2011-006804 Application 10/890,836 3 determining a second confidence attribute and a second temporal attribute associated with the at least one quantitative metric using the memory device of the computer system; and evaluating the likelihood of the particular business behavior pattern by running the model based on the first data set, the second data set, the first confidence attribute, the first temporal attribute, the second confidence attribute and the second temporal attribute using the memory device of the computer system, wherein the model is a risk assessment model and is configured to infer business risk information and evaluate the likelihood of the business behavioral pattern related to the business entity from the at least one qualitative event, the at least one quantitative metric, the first temporal attribute, the second temporal attribute, the first confidence attribute and the second confidence attribute, and wherein the risk assessment model uses a fusion reasoning methodology to infer the business risk information and evaluate the likelihood of the business behavioral pattern. Claims 1-9, 12, 23-28, and 30 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Alder (US 2002/0169658 A1; pub. Nov. 14, 2002), James (US 2004/0172409 A1; pub. Sep. 2, 2004), Official Notice (Appellants’ Admitted Prior Art (hereinafter “AAPA”)) and Makoto Suzuki et al., An Approach to Data Fusion Using Uncertain Knowledge in Geographical Information Systems, 128 Electrical Engineering in Japan, 65- 76 (1999) (hereinafter “Suzuki”). Claim 13 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Alder, James, Suzuki, Official Notice (AAPA), and Skaanning (US 2002/0116351 A1; pub. Aug. 22, 2002). We AFFIRM. Appeal 2011-006804 Application 10/890,836 4 ANALYSIS Independent Claim 1 We are not persuaded the Examiner erred in asserting that various combinations of Adler, James, Suzuki, and Office Notice (AAPA) render obvious the subject matter of independent claim 12 (App. Br. 15-27). After carefully considering all of Appellants’ arguments, we agree with and adopt the Examiner’s findings and rationales, as set forth on pages 23-28 of the Examiner’s Answer. At least paragraphs [0011], [0032], [0112], and [0128] of Adler disclose quantitative and qualitative factors, and paragraph [0011] of Adler is cited by the Examiner as disclosing “extracting a first data set” (Ans. 4), not paragraph [0013] as asserted by Appellants (App. Br. 19). Independent Claim 13 We are not persuaded the Examiner erred in asserting that various combinations of Adler, James, Suzuki, Office Notice (AAPA), and Skaanning render obvious the subject matter of independent claim 13 (App. Br. 27-28). After carefully considering all of Appellants’ arguments, we agree with and adopt the Examiner’s findings and rationales, as set forth on pages 28-29 of the Examiner’s Answer. DECISION The decision of the Examiner to reject claims 1-9, 12, 13, 23-28, and 30 is AFFIRMED. 2 As Appellants argue them together, we choose independent claim 1 as representative of claims 1-9, 12, 23-38, and 30. See 37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(1)(vii). Appeal 2011-006804 Application 10/890,836 5 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)(1)(iv). AFFIRMED hh Copy with citationCopy as parenthetical citation