11284866 (B.P.A.I. Mar. 16, 2011)

Ex Parte Coulter et al

Board of Patent Appeals and InterferencesMar 16, 2011

11284866 (B.P.A.I. Mar. 16, 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 APPEAL1 1 The two-month time period for filing an appeal or commencing a civil action, as recited in 37 C.F.R. § 1.304, or for filing a request for rehearing, as recited in 37 C.F.R. § 41.52, begins to run from the “MAIL DATE” (paper delivery mode) or the “NOTIFICATION DATE” (electronic delivery mode) shown on the PTOL-90A cover letter attached to this decision. Appeal 2010-004629 Application 11/284,866 2 STATEMENT OF THE CASE Appellants seek our review under 35 U.S.C. § 134 of the Examiner’s final decision rejecting claims 1 to 18. We have jurisdiction over the appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). We AFFIRM. BACKGROUND Appellants’ invention is directed to a method of assembling a team of people. (Spec. 1). Claim 1 is illustrative: 1. A method in a computer system for assembling a project team, the method comprising: a computer notifying potential team members with appropriate qualifications of a project for which team members are needed wherein the potential team members are identified based on information contained in a database of potential team members; the computer requesting bids from the notified potential team members; the computer receiving bids from the potential team members; the computer comparing the bids to bid acceptance criteria; the computer sending a bid acceptance to the potential team member if the bid of the potential team member meets bid acceptance criteria. Appellants appeal the following rejections: Claims 1 to 3, 7 to 9, and 13 to 15 under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) as anticipated by Givens (US Pub. 2003/0050816 A1, pub. Mar. 13, 2003). Appeal 2010-004629 Application 11/284,866 3 Claims 4, 5, 10, 11, 16, and 17 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Givens in view of Gundewar (US Pat. 6,381,610 B1, iss. Apr. 30, 2002). Claims 6, 12, and 18 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Givens. ISSUE Did the Examiner err in rejecting the claims because Givens does not disclose notifying potential team members with appropriate qualifications of a project for which the team members are needed and sending a bid acceptance to the potential team members if the bid of the potential team member meets the bid acceptance criteria? FACTUAL FINDINGS We adopt the Examiner’s findings as our own. (Ans. 3 to 4). Additional findings of fact may appear in the Analysis that follows. ANALYSIS Anticipation We are not persuaded of error on the part of the Examiner by Appellants' argument that Givens does not disclose notifying potential team members with appropriate qualifications of a project for which the team members are needed. We agree with the Examiner that the Abstract of Givens clearly discloses that once preliminary screening takes place a candidate is processed on site where a candidate may view the on-line descriptions of available jobs. Thus Givens clearly teaches that the Appeal 2010-004629 Application 11/284,866 4 qualifications of the candidate have been established before the candidate views available jobs. While other portions of the Given’s disclosure state that the candidate views the available jobs before qualifications are checked, this disclosure does not negate the disclosure in the Abstract that the available jobs are presented to the candidate once the candidate has been screened. In any case, Givens discloses that if a candidate is rejected for a position, the system may redirect the candidate to a second job for processing (paras. [0025]; [0037] to [0038]). In this circumstance, the identified candidates are clearly notified about jobs after a qualification process has happened. We are likewise not persuaded of error by the Examiner by Appellants’ argument that Givens does not disclose sending a bid acceptance to the potential team members if the bid of the potential team member meets the bid acceptance criteria. We agree with the Examiner that the disclosure in Givens that an offer is proffered once salary has been agreed on meets this limitation of the claim. Contrary to the representation of the Appellants, the Givens abstract states that candidate’s view rather than review online descriptions of jobs, which indicates that the candidate sees the job descriptions for the first time. In view of the foregoing, we will sustain the Examiner’s rejection of claim 1. We will likewise sustain the rejection as it is directed to claims 2, 3, 7 to 9, and 13 to 15 because the Appellants have not argued the separate patentability of these claims. Appeal 2010-004629 Application 11/284,866 5 Obviousness We will also sustain the rejection of claims 4, 5, 10, 11, 16, and 17 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Givens in view of Gundewar because the Appellants offer the same arguments in response to this rejection as were made in response to the anticipation rejection. DECISION The decision of the Examiner is AFFIRMED. 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)(1). AFFIRMED hh HEWLETT-PACKARD COMPANY Intellectual Property Administration 3404 E. Harmony Road Mail Stop 35 FORT COLLINS, CO 80528