Ex Parte Cooper et al

Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences

Nov 30, 2010

10305404 (B.P.A.I. Nov. 30, 2010)

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.
10/305,404 11/25/2002 Patricia H. Cooper 00051CON1 (40147/07902) 6296
83719 7590 11/30/2010
AT & T Legal Department - FKM
AT & T LEGAL DEPARTMENT,
ATTN: PATENT DOCKETING ROOM 2A-207
BEDMINSTER, NJ 07921
EXAMINER
CHAMPAGNE, LUNA
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
3627
MAIL DATE DELIVERY MODE
11/30/2010 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 PATRICIA H. COOPER, THOMAS C. SMITH, DEREK L.
CALHOUN, KEVIN S. CUNNINGHAM, VICKY FORD PHARR, DIANE
F. TUCKER, and AMY ZWARICO
____________

Appeal 2009-010091
Application 10/305,404
Technology Center 3600
____________

Before MURRIEL E. CRAWFORD, HUBERT C. LORIN, and BIBHU R.
MOHANTY, Administrative Patent Judges.

MOHANTY, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL1

1 The two-month time period for filing an appeal or commencing a civil
action, as recited in 37 C.F.R. § 1.304, or for filing a request for rehearing,
as recited in 37 C.F.R. § 41.52, begins to run from the “MAIL DATE”
(paper delivery mode) or the “NOTIFICATION DATE” (electronic delivery
mode) shown on the PTOL-90A cover letter attached to this decision.

Appeal 2009-010091
Application 10/305,404
2
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
The Appellants seek our review under 35 U.S.C. § 134 (2002) of the
final rejection of claims 1-3, 8-10, 13, 16-19, 21, and 32 which are all the
claims pending in the application. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. §
6(b) (2002).

SUMMARY OF THE DECISION
We REVERSE.

THE INVENTION
The Appellants’ claimed invention is directed to a computer system
for managing commissions (Spec. [0004]). Claim 1, reproduced below with
the numbering in brackets added, is representative of the subject matter on
appeal.

1. A computer system for managing commissions,
comprising:
a storage device containing a database having sales data
representing sales made to purchasers by members of a distributed
sales team of a business enterprise, commission calculation data for
computing sales commissions for the members of the distributed sales
team and a periodic extract of sales transactions for the business
enterprise stored therein;
a user interface for inputting the sales data and commission
calculation data into the database and viewing reports derived from
the sales data and the commission calculation data stored in the
database; and
a processor for processing data associated with the members of
the distributed sales team;
wherein the processor:
retrieves only a sub-group of the billing, inventory,
corporate, and affiliated sales information associated with a selected
sub-set of the members of the distributed sales team to calculate
Appeal 2009-010091
Application 10/305,404
3
commissions for the sub-set of the members of the distributed sales
team based on rules set by the commission calculation data and
forwards the calculated commissions for the selected sub-set of the
members of the distributed sales team to a payroll department within
the business enterprise; and
[1] provides an interface for enabling the members of the
distributed sales team to review commissions prior to payment of the
commissions.

THE REJECTIONS
The Examiner relies upon the following as evidence in support of the
rejections:
Masi US 6,105,001 Aug. 15, 2000
Gharavy US 2003/0004840 A1 Jan. 2, 2003
Koppelman US 6,662,164 B1 Dec. 9, 2003

The following rejections are before us for review:
1. Claims 1-3, 8-10, 13, 16-19, 21, and 32 are rejected under 35
U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Masi, Koppelman, and Gharavy2.

THE ISSUES
At issue is whether the Appellants have shown that the Examiner
erred in making the aforementioned rejections.
With regard to claim 1 and its dependent claims this issue turns on
whether Gharavy has disclosed claim limitation [1]. The rejection of claim
32 turns on a similar issue.

2 The Reply Brief indicates that claim 20 has been cancelled at page 2 as
does the Claims Appendix in the Appeal Brief at page 13. The citation to
claim 20 in the Appeal Brief at page 2 is considered a typographical error.
Appeal 2009-010091
Application 10/305,404
4
FINDINGS OF FACT
We find the following enumerated findings of fact (FF) are supported
at least by a preponderance of the evidence:3
FF1. Masi has disclosed a non-cash incentive and commission distribution
system (Title).
FF2. Gharavy has disclosed a method for performing collective validation
of credential information (Title).
FF3. Gharavy in claim 8 discloses validating a data set and executing
payment of a commission when it is validated to credit a commission to at
least one distributor. Gharavy in claim 8 does not disclose providing an
interface for enabling the members of a distributed sales team to review
commissions prior to payment of the commissions.
FF4. Gharavy at [0023] discloses that the system may interact with a
RuleSet instance through a rule container class or other type of interface
(e.g. license and appointment class). Gharavy at [0023] does not disclose
the interface enabling the members of the distributed sales team to review
commissions prior to payment of the commissions.
FF5. Koppelman has disclosed a method for determining a commission.

ANALYSIS
The Appellants argue that the rejection of claim 1 is improper because
the cited rejection fails to disclose claim limitation [1] (App. Br. 6-7, Reply
Br. 2-4).

3 See Ethicon, Inc. v. Quigg, 849 F.2d 1422, 1427 (Fed. Cir. 1988)
(explaining the general evidentiary standard for proceedings before the
Patent Office).
Appeal 2009-010091
Application 10/305,404
5
In contrast, the Examiner has determined that the rejection of record is
proper and that Gharavy discloses claim limitation [1] in claim 8 and at
[0023] (Ans. 10). The Examiner states that Gharavy “teaches that payment
of commission is made when validation result verifies credential information
identified by a set of rules” and that paragraph [0023] discloses “that the
system may interact with the rules through a interface” (Ans. 10).
We agree with the Appellants. Gharavy in claim 8 discloses
validating a data set and executing payment of a commission but does not
disclose providing an interface for enabling the members of a distributed
sales team to review commissions prior to payment of the commissions
(FF3). Gharavy at paragraph [0023] discloses that the system may interact
with a RuleSet through a type of interface (e.g. license and appointment
class) but does not disclose the interface enabling the members of the
distributed sales team to review commissions prior to payment of the
commissions. Thus, at the portions of the Gharavy reference cited in the
rejection, claim limitation [1] is not shown. For these reasons the rejection
of claims 1 and its dependent claims is not sustained. The rejection of claim
32 includes a similar limitation and for the same reasons above this rejection
is also not sustained.

CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
We conclude that Appellants have shown that the Examiner erred in
rejecting claims 1-3, 8-10, 13, 16-19, 21, and 32 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
unpatentable over Masi, Koppelman and Gharavy.

Appeal 2009-010091
Application 10/305,404
6
DECISION
The Examiner’s rejection of claims 1-3, 8-10, 13, 16-19, 21, and 32 is
reversed.

REVERSED

mls

AT & T LEGAL DEPARTMENT - FKM
AT & T LEGAL DEPARTMENT,
ATTN: PATENT DOCKETING ROOM 2A-207
BEDMINSTER, NJ 07921