Ex Parte Cullen et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Apr 9, 2014

11351835 (P.T.A.B. Apr. 9, 2014)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
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
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE FIRST NAMED INVENTOR ATTORNEY DOCKET NO. CONFIRMATION NO.
11/351,835 02/10/2006 Andrew A. Cullen III 46975-P018US 3062
61060 7590 04/09/2014
WINSTEAD PC
P.O. BOX 131851
DALLAS, TX 75313
EXAMINER
MANSFIELD, THOMAS L
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
3683
MAIL DATE DELIVERY MODE
04/09/2014 PAPER
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.
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
____________

BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
____________

Ex parte ANDREW A. CULLEN III, STEVEN A. SHAW, and
LEONID ZILBERMAN
____________

Appeal 2012-001075
Application 11/351,835
Technology Center 3600
____________

Before: ANTON W. FETTING, MICHAEL W. KIM, and
NINA L. MEDLOCK Administrative Patent Judges.

KIM, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL
Appeal 2012-001075
Application 11/351,835

2
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
This is an appeal from the final rejection of claims 1-13 and 61-67.1
We have jurisdiction to review the case under 35 U.S.C. §§ 134 and 6.
The invention relates to “a computer system and method for
electronically facilitating enterprise administration, data processing,
workflow collaboration and management relative to changes in plan or scope
pertinent to project work.” Spec. p. 2, ll. 16-18.
Claim 1, reproduced below, is further illustrative of the claimed
subject matter.
1. A project-work administrative management method
comprising:
receiving, from a buyer, project-administration
configurations for an awarded project;
storing transactional project work data relating to project
work for the awarded project to be performed for the buyer by a
supplier;
receiving, from the buyer, configuration of project
statement-of-work (SOW) records for the awarded project, each
SOW record comprising a description of at least one project
deliverable;
identifying at least one deliverable project work activity
for the awarded project as a subject of a potential project
change in plan/scope;
responsive to the identifying step:
processing a project change in plan/scope record
set of the buyer to form an updated buyer record set, the
project change in plan/scope record set of the buyer
comprising at least one record impacted by the at least
one deliverable project work activity; and

1 Our decision will make reference to the Appellants’ Appeal Brief (“App.
Br.,” filed December 8, 2010) and the Reply Brief (“Reply Br.,” filed May 2,
2011), and the Examiner’s Answer (“Ans.,” mailed March 1, 2011).
Appeal 2012-001075
Application 11/351,835

3
processing a project change in plan/scope record
set of the supplier to form an updated supplier record set,
the project change in plan/scope record set of the supplier
comprising at least one record impacted by the at least
one deliverable project work activity; and
creating an integrated project change in plan/scope
record set by integrating the updated buyer record set and
the updated supplier record set; and
wherein the steps of the project-work
administrative management method are performed by
one or more computers having a processor and memory.

Claims 1-13 and 61-67 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Parr (US 2003/0135401 A1, published July 17, 2003,
hereinafter “Parr”) in view of Crookshanks (US 7,089,203 B1, issued Aug.
8, 2006, hereinafter “Crookshanks”) further in view of Bajari (Patrick Bajari
and Steven Tadelis, Incentives versus Transaction Costs: A Theory of
Procurement Contracts, RAND Journal of Economics, Vol. 32, No. 3,
Autumn 2001, pp. 387-407, hereinafter “Bajari”).
We REVERSE.

ANALYSIS
Obviousness Rejection of Independent Claim 1
We are persuaded the Examiner erred in asserting that a combination
of Parr, Crookshanks, and Bajari renders obvious the subject matter of
independent claim 1. App. Br. 6-15; Reply Br. 2-4.
Independent claim 1 recites “responsive to the identifying step:
processing a project change in plan/scope record set of the buyer to form an
updated buyer record set.” The Examiner relies on Parr’s teaching of
“developing a contingency plan” as corresponding to the aforementioned
Appeal 2012-001075
Application 11/351,835

4
claim limitation. Ans. 5, 19. Independent claim 1 further recites
“responsive to the identifying step: processing a project change in
plan/scope record set of the supplier to form an updated supplier record set.”
The Examiner relies on Parr’s teaching of “judgments and alterations” as
corresponding to the aforementioned claim limitation. Ans. 5, 19.
Independent claim 1 still further recites “creating an integrated project
change in plan/scope record set by integrating the updated buyer record set
and the updated supplier record set.” Appellants assert that “the Examiner
fails to cite any portion of cited art that may be construed as a record set, let
alone . . . ‘an integrated project change in plan/scope record set.’” App. Br.
14; Reply Br. 4. We agree.
The Examiner relies on the “construction roadmap” and “complete or
incomplete” status updates of Parr. Ans. 5, 20, citing to Parr, ¶¶ 0040-0044
and FIGs. 9-11. The construction roadmap, seen in FIG. 9 for example,
illustrates the sequence of project phases. It is not clear, however, how such
a roadmap corresponds to the “integrated project change in plan/scope
record set” limitation. Nor is it clear how updating a completion status
(Parr, ¶¶ 0040-0044) corresponds to the limitation of “integrating the
updated buyer record set and the updated supplier record set” (claim 1),
especially where such completion statuses do not appear to have anything to
do with the contingency plan and judgments/alterations of Parr, that the
Examiner asserts correspond to the recited updated buyer record set and the
updated supplier record set.
Appellants assert that “Crookshanks and Bajari fail to remedy the
deficiencies of Parr.” App. Br. 15. We agree. Both of these secondary
references teach that project management typically involves experiencing
Appeal 2012-001075
Application 11/351,835

5
and/or coping with unforeseen changes. Crookshanks, col. 2, ll. 55-61; col.
11, ll. 27-29; Bajari, p. 388, ll. 10-11. Like Parr, however, neither has been
shown by the Examiner to teach “creating an integrated project change in
plan/scope record set by integrating the updated buyer record set and the
updated supplier record set,” as recited in independent claim 1.
For the foregoing reasons, we do not sustain the Examiner’s rejection
of independent claim 1 as being unpatentable over Parr in view of
Crookshanks further in view of Bajari.

Obviousness Rejection of Independent Claim 61
As the issues, raised by Appellants, for independent claim 61, reflect
those addressed for claim 1, the same analysis is applicable to independent
claim 61. Thus, we do not sustain the Examiner’s rejection of claim 61 as
being unpatentable over Parr in view of Crookshanks and Bajari.

Obviousness Rejection of Dependent Claims 2-13, 62-67
For at least the reasons provided above with respect to independent
claims 1 and 61, we do not sustain the rejection of their dependent claims 2-
13 and 62-67.

DECISION
The decision of the Examiner to reject claims 1-13 and 61-67 is
REVERSED.

REVERSED

llw