Appeal 2007-2745
Application 09/761,671
1 value changes, and acknowledge that cash flow explains only a portion of the value
2 of an enterprise (Br. 14:Top ¶). The Appellant further argue that Bielinski’s Value
3 Based Management (VBM) would change Brown’s strict reliance on historical
4 cash flow and the related prohibition against using projections of any kind (Br.
5 14:Second ¶).
6 We find that these contentions are all repetitions of those made under the rubric
7 of teaching away, supra, but couched as changing principles of operation, and our
8 findings are the same. The Appellant has made no contention specifically
9 demonstrating that the combination of Bielinske and Brown would necessarily
10 change the principles of their operation, particularly since Brown’s neural network
11 might be used in performance of element [1.b.] and Bielinski’s VBM in
12 performance of [1.c.] of claim 69, thus not requiring any overlap of their operation.
13 The Appellant has not sustained its burden of showing the Examiner erred.
14 Destruction of Ability to Function
15 The Appellant argues that VBM requires that inputs to each node in a tree
16 arithmetically combine to produce an input to a higher level in the tree. The
17 Appellant contends that use of a neural network would destroy the ability to
18 arithmetically generate the numbers required at each tree node. The Appellant
19 similarly contends that the use of a tree would destroy the neural network’s ability
20 to function (Br. 14:Bottom ¶ - 15:Top ¶).
21 We find that these contentions are all repetitions of those made under the rubric
22 of teaching away, supra, but couched as destroying the ability to function, and our
23 findings are the same. The Appellant has made no contention specifically
24 demonstrating that the combination of Bielinske and Brown would necessarily
25 destroy the abilities of their operation, particularly since Brown’s neural network
21
Page: Previous 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013