Ex Parte Coulter et al

Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences

Jul 13, 2011

11284866 (B.P.A.I. Jul. 13, 2011)

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