Appeal 2007-2745
Application 09/761,671
1 in the steps in part [1], and thus limits the terms those components are used in
2 within part [1].
3 The Examiner found that Bielinski describes all of the elements of claim 69
4 except for the use of neural network models using the indicators and a portion of
5 the data to identify value driver candidates. To overcome this deficiency, the
6 Examiner found that Brown described valuation using neural networks and training
7 neural network models for aspects of financial performance using indicators. The
8 Examiner concluded that it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill
9 in the art to have combined Bielinski and Brown to take advantage of neural
10 networks to increase accuracy of models (Answer 3:Bottom ¶ - 4:Full page).
11 The Appellant contends that Bielinski1 and Brown: (1) teach away from the
12 proposed combination; (2) would require a change in operating principle; (3) if
13 combined, would destroy the ability of one of the methods to function; (4) fails to
14 make the invention as a whole obvious; and (5) fails to meet any of the criteria for
15 establishing a prima facie case of obviousness (Br. 12:Third ¶).
16 Teaching Away
17 (1) The Appellant argues that Rappaport’s description of only three market
18 value determinants, is incompatible with Brown’s forty determinants (Br.
19 12:Bottom ¶).
1 The Appellant relies on Rappaport to support many of its arguments regarding
Bielinski, apparently treating Rappaport as having been incorporated by reference
within Bielinski, based on Bielinski’s described usage of Rappaport’s Shareholder
Value Analysis (Bielinski, 30:First full ¶). The Brief somewhat confusingly
attributes text actually found in Rappaport to Bielinski. In this opinion, when we
refer to Rappaport’s text, based on either the Appellant’s contentions, or on our
own analysis and fact finding, we attribute that text to Rappaport.
16
Page: Previous 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013