Ex Parte Bliznak

Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences

Jun 12, 2012

11239140 (B.P.A.I. Jun. 12, 2012)

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.
11/239,140 09/30/2005 Karol Bliznak 07781.0238-00 9606
22852 7590 06/12/2012
FINNEGAN, HENDERSON, FARABOW, GARRETT & DUNNER
LLP
901 NEW YORK AVENUE, NW
WASHINGTON, DC 20001-4413
EXAMINER
CHONG CRUZ, NADJA N
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
3623
MAIL DATE DELIVERY MODE
06/12/2012 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 BOARD OF PATENT APPEALS
AND INTERFERENCES
____________

Ex parte KAROL BLIZNAK
____________

Appeal 2010-006738
Application 11/239,140
Technology Center 3600
____________

Before HUBERT C. LORIN, ANTON W. FETTING, and
BIBHU R. MOHANTY, Administrative Patent Judges.

LORIN, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL
Appeal 2010-006738
Application 11/239,140

2

STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Karol Bliznak (Appellant) seeks our review under 35 U.S.C. § 134 of
the final rejection of claims 1-17. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. §
6(b) (2002).

SUMMARY OF DECISION
We AFFIRM.1

THE INVENTION
Claim 1, reproduced below, is illustrative of the subject matter on
appeal.
1. A computer-implemented method for testing operating
effectiveness of controls for a company, the method
comprising:
creating a test plan, the test plan identifying controls to
be tested using at least one external application;
scheduling at least one test with the at least one external
application; and
electronically uploading control testing results for the
scheduled at least one test,
the testing results being uploaded from the at least one
external application to an interface executed by a processor,
wherein the interface includes a time window related to the
scheduling for the at least one test, and

1 Our decision will make reference to the Appellant’s Appeal Brief (“App.
Br.,” filed Dec. 17, 2009) and Reply Brief (“Reply Br.,” filed Mar. 1, 2010),
and the Examiner’s Answer (“Ans.,” mailed Jan. 28, 2010).
Appeal 2010-006738
Application 11/239,140

3
wherein the interface determines to map the uploaded
control testing results with data related to at least one attribute
defined in a control documentation application, maps the
uploaded control testing results with the data, and sends the
data to the control documentation application, the control
document application being part of a computerized system.

THE REJECTIONS
The Examiner relies upon the following as evidence of
unpatentability:
Movaris Certainty Drives Sarbanes-Oxley Compliance: Review,
www.movaris.com;
(http://web.archive.org/web/20040827231923/http://movaris.com/pro
uct/review.htm (Sep. 9, 2003 – Aug. 27, 2004) (last accessed Apr. 30,
2008)). [Movaris].

Approva, www.approva.net;
(http://www.approva.net/company/press/releases/archive/2003 to
http://www.approva.net/company/press/news/archive/2004 (Oct. 24,
2003 – Sep. 29, 2004) (last accessed Apr. 30, 2008)). [Approva].

Official Notice [is taken] that it is old and well
known in [the] information system and software
developing environment and to one of the ordinary
skill in the art to generate an error code when a
function or action was not performed adequately
then an error occurs and the application does not
execute the function or action related to that error.
(Ans. 25) [Official Notice].

Appeal 2010-006738
Application 11/239,140

4
The following rejections are before us for review:
1. Claims 1-3, 5-8, 10-13, and 15-17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. §
103(a) as being unpatentable over Movaris and Approva.
2. Claims 4, 9, and 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Movaris, Approva, and Official Notice.

ISSUE
Does the cited prior art combination lead one of ordinary skill in the
art to the interface as claimed (i.e., the interface determines to map the
uploaded control testing results with data related to at least one attribute
defined in a control documentation application, maps the uploaded control
testing results with the data, and sends the data to the control documentation
application, the control document application being part of a computerized
system (claim 1))?

FINDINGS OF FACT
We rely on and adopt the Examiner’s factual findings stated in the
Answer (pp. 3-25). Additional findings of fact may appear in the Analysis
below.

ANALYSIS
The rejection of claims 1-3, 5-8, 10-13, and 15-17 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a)
as being unpatentable over Movaris and Approva.
The Appellant argued claims 1-3, 5-8, 10-13, and 15-17 as a group
(App. Br. 12). We select claim 1 as the representative claim for this group,
Appeal 2010-006738
Application 11/239,140

5
and the remaining claims 2, 3, 5-8, 10-13, and 15-17 stand or fall with claim
1. 37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(1)(vii) (2011).
The Appellant argues that Movaris does not disclose “[an] interface
determines to map the uploaded control testing results with data related to at
least one attribute defined in a control documentation application” (claim 1)
as the Examiner allegedly found. App. Br. 12. According to the Appellant,
“in Movaris, to instantly detect and record any non-compliance, a
monitoring application monitors other business applications directly, without
using any claimed ‘interface[s]’ that ‘map [] uploaded control testing
results.’” App. Br. 13 (emphasis original).
The argument is unpersuasive. The Appellant’s argument suggests
that, according to the claimed invention, it is the interface which actually
performs the determining step. But in fact, according to the Specification,
the interface is simply a GUI – a graphical user interface – which, as is
known, is a design for the part of a program that interacts with the user and,
via icons for example, by which a user can interact with certain program
features. See Spec., paras. [029], [030], and [041].
There is no dispute that Movaris employs a computer that performs
the determining step as claimed. But it is not as clear from the reference
whether an interface is included as a vehicle by which a user can interact
with the computer so as to perform the determining step. However, at the
time of the invention (2005), computer interfaces were notoriously well
known and included with practically any computer having a monitor.
Movaris shows monitors and the presumption is that they have
interfaces. In evaluating a reference, it is proper to take into account not only
Appeal 2010-006738
Application 11/239,140

6
the specific teachings of the references but also the inferences which one
skilled in the art would reasonably be expected to draw therefrom. In re
Preda, 401 F.2d 825, 826 (CCPA 1968). Even if we assume arguendo that
Movaris did not contemplate using an interface as was notoriously well
known at the time of the invention but rather employed a manual scheme for
example, modifying the Movaris system to incorporate such an interface
would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill at the time of the
invention. Not only would it have been generally obvious to automate a
known manual procedure (Leapfrog Enters., Inc. v. Fisher-Price, Inc., 485
F.3d 1157, 1162 (Fed. Cir. 2007) but it is the “the mere application of a
known technique to a piece of prior art ready for the improvement” (KSR
Int'l Co. v. Teleflex, Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 417 (2007).
We find no error in the prima facie case of obviousness. Given no
secondary considerations of nonobviousness for our consideration, the
rejection is affirmed.

The rejection of claims 4, 9, and 14 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Movaris, Approva, and Official Notice.
The Appellant has not addressed the rejection in any substantive way.
See App. Br. 15. It is summarily affirmed.

CONCLUSIONS
The rejections of claims 1-3, 5-8, 10-13, and 15-17 under 35 U.S.C. §
103(a) as being unpatentable over Movaris and Approva and claims 4, 9, and

Appeal 2010-006738
Application 11/239,140

7
14 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Movaris, Approva,
and Official Notice, are affirmed.

DECISION
The decision of the Examiner to reject claims 1-17 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). See 37 C.F.R.
§ 1.136(a)(1)(iv).

AFFIRMED

hh