Appeal 2007-2745
Application 09/761,671
1 might be used in performance of element [1.b.] and Bielinski’s VBM in
2 performance of [1.c.] of claim 69, thus not requiring any overlap of their operation.
3 The Appellant has not sustained its burden of showing the Examiner erred.
4 Failure to Make Invention as a Whole Obvious
5 The Appellant repeats the arguments regarding teaching away and concludes
6 that the invention is therefore not obvious as a whole (Br. 15:First full ¶).
7 We find that these contentions are all repetitions of those made under the rubric
8 of teaching away, supra, but couched as making the invention as a whole obvious,
9 and our findings are the same.
10 The Appellant has not sustained its burden of showing the Examiner erred.
11 Failure to Make Prima Facie Case for Obviousness
12 The Appellant argues (1) there is no evidence for the motivation to combine
13 the references; (2) there is no reasonable expectation of success for the same
14 reasons the combination would destroy their ability to function; and (3) the
15 combination fails to include optimization techniques (Br. 15:Bottom ¶ - 16:Top
16 three ¶’s).
17 We find that both Bielinski and Brown describe analytical techniques
18 employed to find drivers for improving organizational performance. Brown
19 teaches that neural networks may be used to analyze past business transactions so
20 they can understand customers' buying patterns, whereas Bielinski teaches how
21 VBM sensitivity analysis of past results offers clues to what can be done in the
22 future and which value drivers should receive the most attention to achieve optimal
23 rewards. Thus both are directed towards analysis of past business operations to
24 offer clues to changing future operations to improve business performance. It
22
Page: Previous 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013