Ex Parte Barney et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Aug 2, 2016

12651021 (P.T.A.B. Aug. 2, 2016)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE
12/651,021 12/31/2009
99434 7590 08/04/2016
McKesson Corporation and Alston & Bird LLP
c/o Alston & Bird LLP
Bank of America Plaza
101 South Tryon St., Suite 4000
Charlotte, NC 28280-4000
FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
Roschelle Barney
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.
050704/382995 8337
EXAMINER
PRASAD, NANCY N
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
3624
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
08/04/2016 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):
usptomail@alston.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte ROSCHELLE BARNEY, CHRISTOPHER SCHMITT, and
JNANICLAY
Appeal2014-001347
Application 12/651,021
Technology Center 3600
Before BIBHU R. MOHANTY, KENNETH G. SCHOPPER, and
BRADLEY B. BAY AT, Administrative Patent Judges.
MOHANTY, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
The Appellants seek our review under 35 U.S.C. § 134 of the final
rejection of claims 1, 2, 4--15, and 17-24, which are all the claims pending
in the application. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
SUMMARY OF THE DECISION
We AFFIRM.
Appeal2014-001347
Application 12/651,021
THE INVENTION
The Appellants' claimed invention is directed to products, systems,
and methods for scheduling and assigning units of work (Spec., para. 2).
Claim 1, reproduced below, is representative of the subject matter on appeal.
1. A computer-implemented method for scheduling and assigning
units of work, the computer-implemented method comprising:
electronically storing a plurality of worker profiles
corresponding respectively to a plurality of workers;
electronically storing one or more worker groups, wherein (a)
each of the one or more worker groups is associated with a plurality of
worker profiles and (b) the plurality of worker profiles for each of the
respective one or more worker groups comprises a common attribute;
electronically storing a first rule that requires compliance with
for a worker profile to be assigned to a unit of work;
electronically storing a second rule that requires authorization,
by an authorizing user associated with an authorizing user profile, for
a worker profile to be assigned to a unit of work;
receiving, via one or more processors, input defining a plurality
of units of work;
• '1 • ' • 1 ' • ,.. • rece1vmg, via me one or more processors, mpm 10enurymg a
scheduling user associated with a scheduling user profile;
receiving input requesting execution of an automated
scheduling operation, wherein execution of the automated scheduling
function comprises (a) electronically identifying at least one worker
group associated with the scheduling user profile and (b) receiving
input selecting a worker profile from the worker group for scheduling;
receiving, via the one or more processors, input from the
scheduling user assigning the worker profile to an assignable unit of
work;
in response to receiving input assigning the worker profile to
the assignable unit of work that would require authorization to be in
compliance with the second rule, generating a request for the
authorizing user to (a) authorize or (b) deny the assignment of the
worker profile to the assignable unit of work;
2
Appeal2014-001347
Application 12/651,021
receiving, via the one or more processors, input from the
authorizing user authorizing the assignment of the worker profile to
the assignable unit of work; and
updating, via the one or more processors, the worker profile to
reflect the assignment of the assignable unit of work.
THE REJECTIONS
The following rejection is before us for review 1:
Claims 1, 2, 4--15, and 17-24 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
unpatentable over Brodersen (US 2002/0029161 Al, pub. Mar. 7, 2002) and
Friedland (US 7,003,475 Bl, iss. Feb. 21, 2006.)
FINDINGS OF FACT
We have determined that the findings of fact in the Analysis section
below are supported at least by a preponderance of the evidence2.
ANALYSIS
The Appellants first argue that the rejection of claim 1 is improper
because the cited prior art fails to disclose the claim limitation for
electronically storing one or more worker groups, wherein (a) each of
the one or more worker groups is associated with a plurality of worker
profiles and (b) the plurality of worker profiles for each of the
respective one or more worker groups comprises a common attribute.
1 The rejections under 35 U.S.C. § 101and35 U.S.C. § 112, first paragraph,
have been withdrawn (Ans. 3, 4, 5).
2 See Ethicon, Inc. v. Quigg, 849 F.2d 1422, 1427 (Fed. Cir. 1988)
(explaining the general evidentiary standard for proceedings before the
Patent Office).
3
Appeal2014-001347
Application 12/651,021
(App. Br. 15, 16). In contrast, the Examiner has determined that the cited
claim limitation is found in Brodersen at paras. 15-17, 27, 46-49, 83-93,
99-104, and Figures 8, 9, and 10 (item 102) (Ans. 5, 6, 25-29).
We agree with the Examiner in this regard. Here, the argued claim
limitation is drawn to "storing one or more worker groups ... each ...
associated with a plurality of worker profiles ... [wherein the] worker
profiles for each of the respective one or more worker groups comprises a
common attribute." Here in Brodersen at para. 16, it is disclosed that
"assignment rules are applied to scored candidates to generate a list of
assignees." Here, the generated list of assignees serves as the "worker
groups" that are associated with a plurality of work profiles that comprise
the common attribute of meeting the assignment rule.
The Appellants next argue that the cited prior art fails to disclose the
claim limitation for
storing a second rule that requires authorization, by an
authorizing user associated with an authorizing user profile.
(App. Br. 16-22). In contrast, the Examiner has determined that the cited
claim limitation is disclosed by Brodersen at paras. 100-103, 167, and 168
(Ans. 31-32).
We agree with the Examiner in this regard as well. Here, the cited
claim limitation is drawn to a "second rule that requires authorization, by an
authorizing user associated with an authorizing user profile" and this is
disclosed by Brodersen at para. 100, which discloses that the assignment of
employees is done from "Assignment Administration screen for users with
System Administrator or Customer Service Manager responsibilities." Here
the System Administrator or Customer Service Manager serve as an
4
Appeal2014-001347
Application 12/651,021
"authorizing user" with management responsibilities. Regardless, such a
feature would have been readily obvious to only allow managers to approve
assignments.
The Appellants have also argued that the claims require both a
"scheduling user" for scheduling units of work and an "authorizing user"
who authorizes the scheduled units of work and that "two separate users" are
required (App. Br. 21, 22). However, the claims do not require that "two
separate users" are required for these functions and the claim is broad
enough to encompass "one user" being assigned to both of these functions.
Thus, this argument is not deemed persuasive.
For these reasons the rejection of claim 1 is sustained. The Appellants
have provided the same remarks for the remaining claims and the rejection
of these claims is sustained as well.
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
We conclude that Appellants have not shown that the Examiner erred
in rejecting claims 1, 2, 4--15, and 17-24, under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
unpatentable over Brodersen and Friedland.
DECISION
The Examiner's rejection of claims 1, 2, 4--15, 17-24 is sustained.
No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with
this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a). See 37 C.F.R.
§ 1.136(a)(l )(iv).
AFFIRMED
5