Ex Parte Mathews et al

Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences

Mar 29, 2012

10453396 (B.P.A.I. Mar. 29, 2012)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
____________

BEFORE THE BOARD OF PATENT APPEALS
AND INTERFERENCES
____________

Ex parte SCOTT H. MATHEWS, VINAY T. DATAR, and
CHRISTOPHER A. FORGIE
____________

Appeal 2010-006225
Application 10/453,396
Technology Center 3600
____________

Before MURRIEL E. CRAWFORD, ANTON W. FETTING, and
JOSEPH A. FISCHETTI, Administrative Patent Judges.

CRAWFORD, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL

Appeal 2010-006225
Application 10/453,396

2
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Appellants seek our review under 35 U.S.C. § 134 of the Examiner’s
final decision rejecting claims 1 to 11, 24 to 34, and 47 to 57. We have
jurisdiction over the appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We AFFIRM.

BACKGROUND
Appellants’ invention is directed to systems, methods, and computer
program products for modeling future benefits (Spec. 1).
Claim 1 is illustrative:
1. A computer-implemented method of
modeling future benefits for a good, the method
comprising:
determining a plurality of benefit probability
distributions for a respective plurality of time
segments of a period of time, the benefit
probability distribution for each time segment
assigning a respective probability to each of a
plurality of different benefit values, wherein for
each of at least some of the time segments,
determining the benefit probability distribution
comprises:
determining a mean of the benefit
value of the good for the time segment as a
function of a growth rate for the respective
time segment and a mean of the benefit
value of the good for the immediately
preceding time segment;
determining a standard deviation for
the time segment as a function of the mean
of the benefit value of the good and an
uncertainty for the respective time segment,
and as a function of the uncertainties for any
Appeal 2010-006225
Application 10/453,396

3
preceding time segments, wherein the
growth rate or uncertainty for at least one
time segment differs from the growth rate or
uncertainty for at least one other time
segment; and
determining the benefit probability
distribution for the time segment as a
function of the mean of the benefit value of
the good and the standard deviation for the
time segment; and
selecting a plurality of benefit values for the
respective plurality of time segments to thereby
generate a model of future benefits over the period
of time, selecting each benefit value including
randomly selecting a benefit value based upon a
respective benefit probability distribution,
wherein one or more of determining a
plurality of benefit probability distributions or
selecting a benefit value are performed by a
processor.
Appellants appeal the following rejections:
Claims 1 to 8, 24 to 31, and w47 to 54 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
unpatentable over Bensoussan (US 7,398,221 B1, iss.
Jul. 8, 2008) in view of Jacobus (US 2004/0068455 A1, pub.
Apr. 8, 2004) in view of Risk Analysis Overview – What is Risk?
(http://ww.decisioneering.com/risk-analysis-print.html) (last visited: Feb. 19,
2002) (hereinafter “Risk”).
Claims 9 to 11, 32 to 34, and 55 to 57 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
unpatentable over Bensoussan in view of Jacobus in view of Risk and
further in view of Official Notice (as evidenced by Jacobus).

Appeal 2010-006225
Application 10/453,396

4
FACTUAL FINDINGS
We adopt all of the Examiner’s findings as our own. Ans. 3 to 5.
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 Bensoussan does not disclose determining the
mean of the benefit value of the good for a time segment as a function of the
mean of the benefit value for the immediately preceding time segment. We
adopt the Examiner’s response to this argument found on pages 9 to 10 of
the Answer. We add for emphasis only that as Bensoussan discloses that the
forecast is done on a period-by-period basis, Bensoussan discloses that it is a
function of the preceding time segment. This is so because the forecast for
any period must include the demand from the beginning of that period
(immediately preceding time period), to the end of the time period. As such,
it is a function of the demand for the immediately preceding time segment.
We are not persuaded of error on the part of the Examiner by
Appellants’ argument that there is no motivation to combine the teachings of
the references. We adopt the Examiner’s response to these arguments found
on pages 10 to 11.
We also adopt the Examiner’s response to the arguments made related
to the dependent claims found on page 11 of the Answer.

Appeal 2010-006225
Application 10/453,396

5
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)(1).

AFFIRMED

hh