Ex Parte Sachedina

Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences

Jun 29, 2009

09634723 (B.P.A.I. Jun. 29, 2009)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
________________

BEFORE THE BOARD OF PATENT APPEALS
AND INTERFERENCES
________________

Ex parte SHER (KARIM) SACHEDINA
______________

Appeal 2009-002964
Application 09/634,723
Technology Center 3600
________________

Decided:1 June 29, 2009
________________

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

JOSEPH A. FISCHETTI, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL
This is an appeal under 35 U.S.C. §§ 6(b) and 134(a) (2002) from the
final rejection of claims 1, 3-8, 11, 16, 21-33, and 41-46. Claims 2, 9, 10,
12-15, 17-20, 34-40, and 47-58 have been cancelled.

1 The two-month time period for filing an appeal or commencing a civil
action, as recited in 37 C.F.R. § 1.304, begins to run from the decided date
shown on this page of the decision. The time period does not run from the
Mail Date (paper delivery) or Notification Date (electronic delivery).
Appeal 2009-002964
Application 09/634,723

2
We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b) (2002).
Representative claim 22 reads as follows:
22. A computer implemented method to
facilitate at least one of budgeting, planning,
analysis and forecasting, the method comprising:
receiving data indicative of business unit
activities;
storing the data to respective accounts of a
plurality of accounts on a computer readable
medium;
generating base data for each selected
account of the plurality of accounts, each selected
account including an associated method that is
applied to the stored account data to determine the
base data;
defining impact data having an impact value
derived from the base data for at least one account
of the plurality of accounts; and
determining a value of adjusted data as a
function of the impact data and the base data.
The reference set forth below is relied upon as evidence of
anticipation:
Groat US 2001/0032155 A1 Oct. 18, 2001
Claims 1, 22, and 41 are the sole independent claims from which all
dependent appealed claims depend. The Examiner rejected claims 1, 3-5,
11, 16, 21-32, 41, and 44-46 as anticipated under 35 U.S.C. § 102(e) by
Groat; the Examiner also rejected claims 6-8, 33, 42, and 43 under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a) as being unpatentable over Groat.
Independent claims 1, 22, and 41 each require:
a. “generating base data for each selected account of the plurality of
accounts” (emphasis added); Appellant’s Specification references the
following passage to explain this limitation:
Appeal 2009-002964
Application 09/634,723

3
the data source 24 may collect information related
to convention center activity, events at local
sporting and music venues, opinion polls, guest
services scores, other nearby events and activities,
and/or other information that may directly or
indirectly affect the operation of the facility. The
data source 24 further may collect environmental
(e.g., weather, news, etc.) or economic information
at a regional or local level that may have an impact
on or be indicative of facility performance.
(Specification 8:7-14.)
b. “each selected account including an associated method that is
applied to the stored account data to determine the base data” (emphasis
added); Appellant’s Specification references the following passage to
explain this limitation:
a method may pull data from database data fields
into an active method and process selected data
from the data fields with constant data fields
defined in the method to produce a data item or
result.
(Specification 21:6-8.)
c. “defining impact data having an impact value derived from the base
data for at least one account of the plurality of accounts” (emphasis added);
Appellant’s Specification references the following passage to explain this
limitation:
[t]he attribute method 566 compares the
value of each designated attribute in the two
calendar years 570 and 572 for each identified
event. The attribute method 566, in turn, provides
impact data having a value indicative of an impact
that the identified event (e.g., an event, holiday
convention, renovation, etc.) had on each
designated account in the calendar attribute data
564.
Appeal 2009-002964
Application 09/634,723

4
(Specification 31: 3-7.)
d. “determining a value of adjusted data as a function of the impact
data and the base data.” (Emphasis added.) Appellant’s Specification
references the following passage to explain this limitation:
[Key Result Areas] may be linked to a predefined
method that is to be applied to the selected
account(s) to derive an impact based on the data
processed by the method, such as based on budget
parameters in the budgeting/forecasting process
(e.g., date range, account range, etc.).
(Specification 38:3-6.)
The Examiner found that Groat discloses limitations a, b, c, and d
above in that,
[a]pplying an income tax rate to determine
the amount of monthly income to be paid in
income taxes or a percentage of the
monthly income to be allocated to a
retirement account are examples of method
components) used to derive base data [¶¶
34-36 - The income taxes or retirement
account serves as derived base data. They
are shown as "Income Taxes" and
"Retirement Account," respectively, in Fig.
1] for the at least one account [¶¶ 34-36 -
The monthly gross income, i.e., one's
income before taxes and retirement
contributions are taken out, is "the at least
one account." This account is designated
as "Monthly Income" in Fig. 1]; a third user
interface element characterizing an impact
value derived from the base data [¶¶ 34-36
- The net monthly income amount, i.e., the
remaining income amount that is to be
deposited in the bank account, is derived
from the amount paid in income taxes or
Appeal 2009-002964
Application 09/634,723

5
allocated to a retirement account. The net
monthly income amount affects the "Bank
Account" balance shown in the Fig. 1], the
impact value adjusts the base data to
provide adjusted data for the at least one
account [¶¶ 34-36 - The net monthly
income amount is based on, or derived
from, tax and retirement deduction value,
which ultimately affects the amount of
money to be deposited into the bank
account. Then, the bank account amount
may be further adjusted based on an
interest rate property of the bank account
itself (¶ 38)]."
(Answer 13-14.)
Thus, we tally from the above findings, the Examiner reads the tax
rates or the percentage paid to a retirement account as associated methods;
the taxes paid or the retirement account as the base data; the net monthly
income is read as the impact value, and the gross monthly income is read as
the at least one account.
Appellant argues that
the Examiner's base assumptions yield the
impact value (i.e., net monthly income)
adjusts the base data (i.e., amount of taxes
paid) to provide adjusted data for the at least
one account. Yet, Groat, et al. does not teach
or suggest that the net monthly income adjusts
the amount of taxes paid. To the contrary,
Groat, et al. discloses [(sic.)] the opposite, i.e.,
the amount of taxes paid adjusts the monthly
Appeal 2009-002964
Application 09/634,723

6
income to yield net monthly income. (See e.g.,
paragraphs 0039, 0058). Accordingly, Groat, et al.
does [(sic.)] not disclose or suggest "the impact
value adjusts the base data to provide adjusted
data for the at least one account.”
(Reply Br. 4.) We agree with Appellant.
The net monthly income in Groat cannot be analogous to the impact
value because the net monthly income is impacted by the taxes paid2, and
the taxes paid claim element is read by the Examiner as the base data. We
thus cannot sustain the rejection under 35 U.S.C. § 102(e) of independent
claims 1, 22, and 41, and those claims which depend therefrom. “A claim is
anticipated only if each and every element as set forth in the claim is found,
either expressly or inherently described, in a single prior art reference.”
Verdegaal Bros. v. Union Oil Co. of California, 814 F.2d 628, 631 (Fed. Cir.
1987), cert. denied, 484 U.S. 827 (1987).
As the rejection of claims 6-8, 33, 42, and 43 fails to cure the
deficiency of the rejection of claims 1, 22, and 41, we will also not sustain
the rejection of these claims under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) over Groat.
The decision of the Examiner is reversed.

REVERSED

2 Groat ¶[0058] discloses that tax amounts are subtracted from gross
monthly income, and gross monthly income which is impacted by the tax
payment is not read as base data, but rather as the at least one account.
Appeal 2009-002964
Application 09/634,723

7
hh

Himanshu S. Amin
Amin Eschweiler & Turocy, LLP
24th Floor National City Center
1900 East 9th Street
Cleveland, OH 44114