Ex Parte Jang et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

May 31, 2016

11200727 (P.T.A.B. May. 31, 2016)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE
111200,727 08/10/2005
45092 7590
HOFFMAN WARNICK LLC
540 Broadway
4th Floor
ALBANY, NY 12207
06/02/2016
FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
YunheeJang
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.
END920050106US 1 4154
EXAMINER
MILLER, ALAN S
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
3623
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
06/02/2016 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):
PTOCommunications@hoffmanwarnick.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte YUNHEE JANG, JUHNYOUNG LEE, GRACE Y. LIN,
and DAVID D. YAO
Appeal2013-006485
Application 11/200,727
Technology Center 3600
Before MURRIEL E. CRAWFORD, MICHAEL W. KIM, and
BRADLEY B. BAY AT, Administrative Patent Judges.
CRAWFORD, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Appellants seek our review under 35 U.S.C. § 134 of the Examiner's
final decision rejecting claims 1-8, 17-21, and 27. We have jurisdiction
over the appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We AFFIRM.
BACKGROUND
Appellants' invention is directed to a value model that can be used to
analytically value an enterprise function (Spec. 1 ).
Appeal2013-006485
Application 11/200,727
Claim 1 is illustrative:
1. A method of managing a value model for use in
valuing an enterprise function, the method comprising:
generating the value model on at least one computing
device by:
obtaining a first set of enterprise function nodes for
a first enterprise level of the value model at the at least
one computing device, each enterprise function node
representing a capability, an ability, or an activity of an
enterprise;
obtaining a value driver graph at the at least one
computing device, wherein the value driver graph
includes a plurality of driver levels each of which
includes at least one driver metric node representing a
unique business measure, and wherein the value driver
graph includes a set of driver relationships, wherein each
driver relationship defines an impact that at least one
driver metric node in a lower driver level has on a driver
metric node in a higher driver level, wherein the impact
indicates a percentage that the lower driver metric node
contributes to an overall value of the driver metric node
in the higher driver level; and
generating the value model by adding the first set
of enterprise function nodes to the value driver graph,
wherein generating the value model includes determining
a first set of value relationships between the first set of
enterprise function nodes and a set of driver metric nodes
in a lowest driver level of the value driver graph with the
at least one computing device, wherein each value
relationship defines how each enterprise function node
impacts each driver metric node in the lowest driver
level.
The Examiner relies on the following prior art reference as evidence
of unpatentability:
Ruffin US 6,526,387B1 Feb.25,2003
2
Appeal2013-006485
Application 11/200,727
Heyns
Parker
US 2004/0073467 Al
US 2004/0225549 Al
Appellants appeal the following rejections:
Apr. 15, 2004
Nov. 11, 2004
Claims 1--4, 7, 8, 17-19, 21, and 27 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
unpatentable over Parker and Heyns.
Claims 5, 6, and 20 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over
Parker, Heyns, and Ruffin.
ISSUE
Did the Examiner err in rejecting the claims because Parker fails to
generate the value model by adding the first set of enterprise function nodes
to the value driver graph?
FACTUAL FINDINGS
We adopt the Examiner's findings regarding the teachings of Parker
as our own. Ans. 4--5, Final Act. 4. Additional findings of fact may appear
in the Analysis that follows.
ANALYSIS
We are not persuaded of error on the part of the Examiner by
Appellants' argument that simply providing a graphical user interface fails
to teach or suggest generating the value model by adding the first set of
enterprise function nodes to the value driver graph, as required by claim 1.
We agree with the Examiner's finding that paragraph 75 of Parker
discloses a graphical user interface tool that can be used to create a model
and paragraph 81 discloses a value chain with a breakdown of organizational
3
Appeal2013-006485
Application 11/200,727
activities. The Examiner found that while Parker does not explicitly
disclose "physical representation of nodes," i.e., a value driver graph,
Parker, however, uses tables, charts, and spreadsheets to represent functions
(Final Act. 5), and as such teaches a value driver graph as broadly claimed.
The Examiner also found that paragraphs 96-98 and 100-101 teach the
adding step, and paragraph 101 discloses mapping of various value chain
processes through a process-span matrix (Ans. 4, 5). Thus, the Examiner is
not relying only on the graphical user interface disclosed in paragraph 75 to
teach adding a step limitation, but provides several citations within Parker to
teach representing nodes and relationships in graphical form to meet this
limitation.
We are not persuaded of error on the part of the Examiner by
Appellants' argument that the process-span matrix is not the same as the
value chain of Parker because, according to Appellants, the Examiner did
not find that that process-span matrix is the same as the value chain of
Parker. In fact, the Examiner relied on paragraph 101 of Parker for teaching
that the process-span matrix and value chain are two separate items (process-
span matrix that maps the value chain processes .... ).
We are not persuaded of error on the part of the Examiner by
Appellants' arguments presented in the Reply Brief because these arguments
merely restate the claim language and some of the language of paragraphs
96, 100 and 101 of Parker and conclude that the Parker paragraphs fail to
teach the subject matter of the claim. Missing is any analysis as to why the
reliance of the Examiner on these paragraphs is in error.
4
Appeal2013-006485
Application 11/200,727
In view of the foregoing, we sustain the Examiner's rejection of claim
1. We also sustain the Examiner's rejection of the remaining claims because
Appellants do not separately argue the patentability of these claims.
DECISION
The decision of the Examiner 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)(l).
AFFIRMED
5