Ex Parte Verma

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Mar 29, 2016

12908253 (P.T.A.B. Mar. 29, 2016)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE
12/908,253 10/20/2010
45502 7590
Yudell Isidore PLLC
10601 RR2222, Ste. Rll 1
Austin, TX 78730
03/31/2016
FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
Ashish Verma
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.
IN9201001 l 6US 1 3550
EXAMINER
MANSFIELD, THOMAS L
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
3623
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
03/31/2016 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):
Patents@yudellisidore.com
eofficeaction@appcoll.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte ASHISH VERMA
Appeal2013-008753
Application 12/908,253
Technology Center 3600
Before MURRIEL E. CRAWFORD, JOSEPH A. FISCHETTI, and
SHEILA F. McSHANE, Administrative Patent Judges.
CRAWFORD, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Appellant seeks our review under 35 U.S.C. § 134 of the Examiner's
final decision rejecting claims 7-18. We have jurisdiction over the appeal
under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b ).
We REVERSE.
Claim 7 is illustrative:
7. A data processing system, comprising:
a processor;
data storage coupled to the processor; and
program code within the data storage that, when executed
by the processor, causes the data processing system to perform:
Appeal2013-008602
Application 13/456,362
establishing a mapping between a plurality of
internal data sources all within a same service
organization and multiple service quality factors
regarding a service provided by the service organization,
wherein each of the plurality of internal data sources
provides objective, quantifiable service quality data
regarding the service provided by the service
organization;
determining, from a customer satisfaction value for
the service and internal service quality data for provision
of the service, a mathematical transformation of internal
service quality data obtained from the plurality of
internal data sources to obtain the customer satisfaction
value; and
estimating and reporting a service quality delivered
by the service organization in provision of the service by
applying the mathematical transformation to at least
some of the internal service quality data obtained from
the plurality of internal data sources.
Appellant appeals the following rejections:
1. Claims 7-10, 12-16, and 18 under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) as anticipated by
Carson (US 2005/0028005 Al, pub. Feb. 3, 2005).
2. Claims 11 and 17 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Carson
and Lemler (US 7,467,192 B 1, iss. Dec. 16, 2008).
ISSUE
Did the Examiner err in rejecting the claims because Carson does not
disclose determining a mathematical transformation of quality data to obtain
the consumer satisfaction value?
2
Appeal2013-008602
Application 13/456,362
ANALYSIS
The Appellant argues that Carson does not disclose determining a
mathematical transformation to obtain a customer satisfaction value. We
agree.
The Examiner relies on paragraphs 19, 50-56, 78-87, and Table 1 of
Carson for disclosing this subject matter (Ans. 5). The Examiner does not
explain where in these numerous paragraphs a mathematical transformation
to obtain a customer satisfaction value is determined. While the Examiner
states in the Response to Argument section of the answer that Carson's
teaching of the ability to calculate and view numeric results would broadly
be interpreted to be a mathematical transformation, the Examiner does not
explain how this calculation results in a customer satisfaction value (Id. at
8). For the Exarniner to carry the burden of establishing a prima facie case
of anticipation, the Examiner must establish that each and every element of
~i 1! • 1! • 1° 1 ° 11! ,1 1 • ~ l" 1 • ~ 1 1ne cmnnea mvennon, anangea as reqmrea oy me c1mm, is rnuna m a smg1e
prior art reference, either expressly or under the principles of inherency. See
general(y In re Schreiber, 128 F.3d 1473, 1477 (Fed. Cir. 1997). This the
Examiner has not done.
Our review of the paragraphs relied on by the Examiner does not
reveal a disclosure of determining a mathematical transformation to obtain a
customer satisfaction value. Paragraph 19 of Carson relates generally to a
survey tool that allows an organization in a pre-survey assessment to submit
survey answers and see a numerical score based on the pre-survey
assessment. This paragraph does not disclose a mathematical transformation
to obtain a customer satisfaction value. Paragraphs 50-56 relate to how the
actual survey is conducted which includes an ability of a user to obtain
3
Appeal2013-008602
Application 13/456,362
scored data, but there is no disclosure that the scored data is a customer
satisfaction value or that it is has been obtained by determining a
mathematical transformation. Paragraphs 78-87 relate to accreditations of
health plans and include a Health Plan Employee Data and Information set
which measures performance of health plans in regard to immunization
rates, mammography rates and member satisfaction. While this discloses
measuring member satisfaction, there is no disclosure of determining a
mathematical transformation to obtain a customer satisfaction value.
Although the Examiner at page 8 is correct that Table 1 of Carson discloses
that the Carson system has the ability to calculate and view numerical
results, it is unclear how this is related to or teaches the recitation in claim 1
of determining a mathematical transformation to obtain a customer
satisfaction value. The Examiner has not established that Carson describes
determining a mathematical transformation to obtain a customer satisfaction
1 • 1 1 1 • ,..., vame as reqmrea oy crn1m 1.
Therefore, we will not sustain the rejection as it is directed to claim 7,
and claims 8-10 and 12 dependent therefrom dependent therefrom, under 3 5
U.S.C. § 102(b). We will also not sustain the rejection as it is directed to
independent claim 13, and claims 14--16 and 18 dependent therefrom,
because claim 13 recites a program product that program code that causes a
computer to determine a mathematical transformation of internal quality data
to obtain a customer satisfaction value.
We will likewise not sustain the rejection of claims 11 and 17 under
35 U.S.C. § 103(a) over Carson in view of Lemler because claim 11 depends
from claim 7 and claim 1 7 depends from claim 13 and the Examiner relies
4
Appeal2013-008602
Application 13/456,362
on Carson for teaching determining a mathematical transformation to obtain
a customer satisfaction value in this rejection.
DECISION
The decision of the Examiner reversed.
REVERSED
5