Ex Parte Coulter et alDownload PDFBoard of Patent Appeals and InterferencesJul 13, 201111284866 (B.P.A.I. Jul. 13, 2011) Copy Citation UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE ____________________ BEFORE THE BOARD OF PATENT APPEALS AND INTERFERENCES ____________________ Ex parte JEFFERY R. COULTER and THOMAS L. HILL ____________________ Appeal 2010-004629 Application 11/284,866 Technology Center 3600 ____________________ Before MURRIEL E. CRAWFORD, ANTON W. FETTING, and JOSEPH A. FISCHETTI, Administrative Patent Judges. CRAWFORD, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON REQUEST FOR REHEARING Appeal 2010-004629 Application 11/284,866 2 INTRODUCTION Appellants filed a Request for Reconsideration of our Decision on Appeal (mailed March 18, 2011) asking that we reconsider and reverse the Examiner’s rejection of claims 2, 4, 5, 8, 10, 11, 14, 16, and 17. Appellants argue that we did not consider the arguments advanced in regard to the above claims and that we misapprehended the teachings of Givens and Gundewar. In regard to claims 2, 8, and 14, Appellants argue that we did not consider the arguments advanced in regard to these claims in the Brief. We do not agree. On page 14 of the Brief, Appellants argue that there is no teaching regarding bid creation by selecting at least one of at least two presented options. On page 3 of our Opinion we stated that we adopted the Examiner’s findings on pages 3 and 4 of the Answer as our own. On page 4 of the Examiner’s Answer, the Examiner found that the feature of a bid created by the potential team member selecting at least one option from a presentation of at least two options was found in paragraph [0097] of Givens. Paragraph [0097] of Givens makes it clear that the candidate has two options. Option 1 is to accept the offer of salary and thus place a bid for the amount offered and option 2 is to place a bid for another salary. As such, a bid is selected by a team member selecting one option from a presentation of two options. Therefore, we agreed with the Examiner in our Opinion that this subject matter is taught by Givens. Appellants also argue that we did not fully consider the arguments presented in regard to claims 4, 5, 10, 11, 16, and 17. In the rejection of these claims the Examiner relies on Gundewar for teaching notifying a team Appeal 2010-004629 Application 11/284,866 3 member of the identities of other team members on the project as is recited in claims 4, 10, and 16 and for communicably connecting team members to allow collaboration as required by claims 5, 11, and 17. We find the arguments of Appellants to be reasonable for the reasons explained below and thus we will modify our original Decision to reverse to the rejection of claims 4, 5, 10, 11, 16, and 17. The Examiner relies on column 8, lines 51 to 60, of Gundewar for teaching notifying a team member of the identities of other team members on the project and communicably connecting team members to allow collaboration. However, we find that this portion, when read together with column 7, lines 26 to 37, does not disclose that the names of the team members are identified to each team member or that the team members are communicably connected. Rather, we find that Gundewar teaches that a template that includes all the identifying project team members and contact information is sent to the project manager. Another template, a risk evaluation template, is sent to each team member. Therefore, Gundewar does not disclose sending the first template containing the names and contact information to each team member but rather sending an individual template to each team member to fill our regarding risk assessment. As such, the Examiner has not established that Gundewar teaches that team members are notified of the identities of other team members nor are they communicably connected to allow for collaboration. In view of the foregoing, we reverse the rejection of the Examiner as to claims 4, 5, 10, 11, 16, and 17. Appeal 2010-004629 Application 11/284,866 4 Appellants also state that we failed to dispose of claims 6, 12, and 18. We do not agree. Our Decision made it clear that each of the rejections for each of the claims was affirmed. As such, the Decision affirmed the rejection of claims 6, 12, and 18. As indicated supra, Appellants’ request for a rehearing of our Decision has been granted-in-part, and our Decision modified to reflect our agreement with Appellants’ arguments concerning claims 4, 5, 10, 11, 16, and 17. We do not find Appellants’ arguments with respect to claims 2, 8, and 14 to be compelling and we make no modification of our prior Decision with respect to those claims. Thus, our affirmance of the Examiner’s obviousness rejection of claim 4, 5, 10, 11, 16, and 17 is hereby withdrawn and the rejection is reversed. No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a)(1)(iv). REHEARING GRANTED-IN-PART babc Copy with citationCopy as parenthetical citation