Ex Parte Diaz et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Sep 25, 2014

12054702 (P.T.A.B. Sep. 25, 2014)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
____________________

BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
____________________

Ex parte SHARI L. DIAZ,
LAWRENCE B. KROEGER, BRADENA W. PAYNE, CYNTHIA J.
SULLIVAN, and GLENN G. WEBB
____________________

Appeal 2011-005676
Application 12/054,702
Technology Center 3700
____________________

Before SALLY C. MEDLEY, JOSIAH C. COCKS, and
TRENTON A. WARD, Administrative Patent Judges.

COCKS, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL

Appeal 2011-005676
Application 12/054,702

2
I. STATEMENT OF THE CASE
This is a decision on appeal by Appellants under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a)
from a final rejection of claims 1, 2, 4, 5, 7–9, 11, 12, 14, and 17–20. We
have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We affirm.1
A. References Relied on by the Examiner
Farenden 2002/0128894 Sept. 12, 2002
Dewar 2002/0055866 May 9, 2002
Bouchard 2001/0034011 Oct. 25, 2001
“DOI Ranking Interview”2
B. The Rejections on Appeal
The Examiner rejected claims 1-2, 7-9, 14 and 19-20 under 35 U.S.C.
103(a) as unpatentable over Farenden, Dewar, and DOI Ranking Interview.
Ans. 3–7.
The Examiner rejected claims 4, 5, 11, 12, and 16–18 as unpatentable
over Farenden, Dewar, DOI Ranking Interview, and Bouchard. Id. at 7–8.

1 In this opinion, we make reference to the Appellants’ Appeal Brief filed
September 20, 2010 (“App. Br.”), the Examiner’s Answer filed December
13, 2010 (“Ans.”), and the Appellants’ Reply Brief filed January 31, 2011
(“Reply Br.”).

2 The Examiner indicates that the “DOI Ranking Interview” reference was
retrieved from the following web address:
http://web.archive.org/web/20001010045007 /http:/
/www.doi.gov/hrm/pmanager/stl3c2.html
Ans. 3. The Appellants do not dispute that DOI Ranking Interview
constitutes prior art.
Appeal 2011-005676
Application 12/054,702

3
C. The Invention
The Specification of Application 12/054,702(“the ’702 Application”)
summarizes the disclosed invention as follows:
[E]mbodiments of the invention provide a computer-
implemented method and a system for evaluating interviewees (i.e.,
job candidates, prospective students, etc.) that are each
interviewed by at least one of a plurality of interviewers, for
example, at a job fair or other recruiting-type event.

Spec. 2.
Claims 1, 8, 14, and 20 are independent. Claim 1 is illustrative and is
reproduced below:
1. A computer-implemented method of evaluating multiple
interviewees, said interviewees each being interviewed for a
position by multiple interviewers at an event and by only one of
said multiple interviewers at a time, said computer-
implemented method comprising:

providing, by a first computer system to at least one
second computer system for access by said multiple
interviewers, information specific to each interview of each
interviewee, said information comprising:

background data on each said interviewee;

predetermined interview questions for each said
interview of each said interviewee; and

weights to be assigned to said predetermined
interview questions and preselected values to be assigned
to specific answers to said predetermined interview
questions for purposes of subsequently determining a
quantitative interview score for each said interview of
each said interviewee;

Appeal 2011-005676
Application 12/054,702

4
receiving, by said at least one second computer system
from said multiple interviewers, said quantitative interview
score and qualitative interview feedback regarding each said
interviewee following each said interview, said qualitative
interview feedback comprising subjective comments about said
interviewee;

receiving, by said first computer system from said at least
one second computer system, said quantitative interview score
for each said interviewee following each said interview;

systematically comparing, by said second computer
system, quantitative interview scores of each of said
interviewees to determine a first ranking of all of said
interviewees, said first ranking being updated as said
quantitative interview scores are received and further being
accessible by selected users;

receiving, by said at least one second computer system, a
second ranking of said all of said interviewees, said second
ranking generated collaboratively by said multiple
interviewers based said qualitative interview feedback and
input into said at least one second computer system; and

receiving, by said first computer system from said at least
one second computer system, said second ranking of said all of
said interviewees, said second ranking being accessible by said
selected users.
II. ISSUE
Does the record reflect that the Examiner was incorrect in rejecting
claims 1, 2, 4, 5, 7–9, 11, 12, 14 and 17–20 as unpatentable in light of the
prior art?

Appeal 2011-005676
Application 12/054,702

5
III. ANALYSIS
The invention set forth in the involved Application relates generally to
a computer-implemented approach for evaluating interviewees, e.g., job
candidates or prospective students, which takes into account qualitative
assessment and quantitative ranking from multiple interviewers. The
described approach places emphasis or “weight” on particular answers
provided by the interviewees in response to predetermined questions. In
light of the teachings of the prior art, the Examiner reasoned that the
particular “computer-implemented method” and computerized “system” for
such evaluation would have been obvious.
The Appellants argue the claims in five claim groupings: (A) claims 1,
2, 4, 5, and 7; (B) claims 8, 9, 11, and 12; (C) claims 14 and 17-19; (D)
claim 20; and (E) claims 4, 5, 11, 12, 17, and 18.
A. Claims 1, 2, 4, 5, and 7

Claim 1 is independent, and claims 2, 4, 5, and 7 ultimately depend
from claim 1. Having reviewed the Appellants’ briefings and the
Examiner’s Answer, it is apparent that three particular features of the
claimed evaluation approach lie at the center of the Appellants’ assertions of
non-obviousness of claim 1. We focus on the noted features in dispute.
1. “said interviewees each being interviewed for a position by
multiple interviewers at an event and by only one of said
multiple interviewers at a time”

The above- noted claims require that, at a given event, the
interviewees are interviewed by multiple interviewers, but by only one
Appeal 2011-005676
Application 12/054,702

6
interviewer at a time. The Appellants argue that such practice distinguishes
the claims over the prior art.
In rejecting claim 1, the Examiner made reference to various items of
prior art, including Farenden. Farenden characterizes its described invention
as a computerized internet-based system for recruiting candidates for
employment. Farenden 1, ¶ 10. As a part of its disclosure, Farenden
describes operation of a computer server in conjunction with a variety of
evaluation practices for candidates, including those that take place during
“employer hosted recruiting events.” Id. In that regard, Farenden generally
explains the following:
The server may also be configured to host an interface
for defining and scheduling the employer-hosted recruiting
events. During the recruiting events, the server is configured to
host an interface for receiving an assessment of each candidate
attending an employer-hosted recruiting event. Candidate
assessments during the employer-hosted recruiting event are
received and reported by the system in real time and comprise
an assessment of a candidate’s interview performance, an
assessment of a candidate’s performance during a group
observation exercise and a placement recommendation for the
candidate wherein the recommendation is based on the
candidate’s discussions with a mentor.

Id. at 1-2, ¶ 12. Thus, an evaluation process contemplated in Farenden
includes, among other things, assessment of a candidate’s interview
performance at a given recruiting event, assessment during a group
observation exercise, and recommendations based on a candidate’s
discussions with a mentor at the event.
Farenden further explains that, as a part of the evaluation process, the
interview that a candidate undergoes may be one characterized as a
Appeal 2011-005676
Application 12/054,702

7
“structured panel interview,” which is understood as an interview process
involving multiple interviewers. See id. at 10, ¶ 170; see also App. Br. 21-
22. In such a scenario, the multiple interviewers may discuss the results of
the interview to reach consensus in assessment of the candidate’s
performance during the interview. Farenden 10, ¶ 172. In other scenarios,
as a part of the evaluation of a given candidate, the candidate may be asked
to take an “on-line skills questionnaire” in lieu of attendance at an employer-
hosted event, where the candidate’s assessment is undertaken by a hiring
manager based on the questionnaire. Id. at 9, ¶ 160. Further consideration
of the candidate in that circumstance may necessitate that ultimately “a new
hiring manager conducts a structured interview with the candidate[.]” Id.
In view of the teachings of Farenden, it is evident that the reference
contemplates a variety of potential evaluation techniques for candidates,
including those in which a candidate’s assessment occurs at a recruiting
event in the form of a structured interview before multiple interviewers
forming a panel, or the candidate’s assessment is performed by a hiring
manager of a candidate’s on-line questionnaire followed by a structured
interview with another hiring manager.
We have considered the Appellants’ challenge to the Examiner’s
obviousness rejection in connection with the involved claim feature. In that
regard, the Appellants characterize Farenden’s disclosure of an interview by
a “panel” as requiring the presence of multiple interviewers at a single
interview, such that the process does not involve an interview of a
interviewee “by only one of said multiple interviewers at a time.” App. Br.
21-22. The Appellants also assert that evaluation of a candidate’s on-line
Appeal 2011-005676
Application 12/054,702

8
questionnaire does not constitute an “interview” in the context of the claim,
or one that occurs “at an event.” Reply Br. 11.
At the outset, we are not persuaded that Farenden’s disclosure of a
“panel interview” precludes multiple, separate discussions or interactions
with a candidate by individual members of a panel. A reference stands for
all of its specific teachings, as well as the inferences one of ordinary skill in
this art reasonably would have been expected to draw therefrom. In re
Fritch, 972 F.2d 1260, 1264-65 (Fed. Cir. 1992); see also Perfect Web
Technologies, Inc. v. InfoUSA, Inc., 587 F.3d 1324, 1329 (Fed. Cir. 2009)
(“hold[ing] that while an analysis of obviousness always depends on
evidence that supports the required Graham factual findings, it also may
include recourse to logic, judgment, and common sense available to the
person of ordinary skill that do not necessarily require explication in any
reference or expert opinion”). Here, we do not discern that Farenden
mandates that the “panel interview” must only constitute a singular temporal
event in which all members of the panel are present simultaneously. A
skilled artisan would infer reasonably that a “panel interview” need not
occur necessarily in a single sitting or session. We also are not persuaded
that assessment of a candidate’s qualification submitted in an on-line
questionnaire cannot be regarded reasonably as an “interview,” when that
term is given its broadest reasonable interpretation.
In any event, even assuming the Appellants’ assertions are correct, we
are not persuaded that the claim feature in question patentably distinguishes
the claims of the ’702 Application over Farenden. It is apparent readily
from the teachings of Farenden that one of ordinary skill in the art would
have known that a candidate’s evaluation for employment may be performed
Appeal 2011-005676
Application 12/054,702

9
through participation by multiple interviewers as a part of the evaluation. A
skilled artisan also would have appreciated as a matter of common sense, if
not also from Farenden’s disclosure, that such participation may occur in
one of two ways, either in a “one-on-one” situation vis-à-vis the candidate
and a given interviewer, or with multiple interviewers present in a given
session. The choice of one of those approaches, and in particular, the former
approach, is not the product of innovation, but rather is simply selection
between a limited number of identified, predictable solutions to a known
problem as an exercise in ordinary skill and common sense. See KSR Int’l
Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 421 (2007). Such selection does not
operate to distinguish patentably the claims of the ’702 Application over the
prior art.
We have considered the Appellants’ argument and, for the reasons
discussed above, we are not persuaded that it demonstrates error in the
Examiner’s rejection.
2. Assigning “weights” to “predetermined interview
questions” and assigning preselected values to specific
answers to said predetermined interview questions for
purposes of subsequently determining a “quantitative
interview score” for each said interview of each said
interviewee that is used to establish a “first ranking”

Claim 1 also requires that a quantitative interview score be
determined for an interviewee by assigning weights to predetermined
interview questions and then assigning values to the answers to the questions
given by the interviewer. The quantitative scores are used in establishing a
“first ranking” for the interview.
Appeal 2011-005676
Application 12/054,702

10
In accounting for the above-noted claim requirement, the Examiner
relied on the combined teachings of Farenden and Dewar. In that regard, the
Examiner determined that given the combined teachings of the references, a
skilled artisan would have realized that, in connection with the interview of a
candidate, the answers offered by the candidate in response to questions may
be evaluated or scored ultimately to “rank” the candidate in a manner
reasonably regarded as a first ranking. To that end, beyond the teachings of
Farenden, the Examiner makes reference particularly to the disclosure of
Dewar. See Ans. 5-6.
Dewar is titled “Computer-Implemented System for Human
Resources Management” and characterizes its disclosure as follows:
A system for testing a job applicant provides a
computerized stack ranking of multiple applicants, predicative
of the comparative levels of successful job performance. The
predicative stack ranking may be used as a dynamic interactive
filter with a pool of applicants over the course of the evaluation
or employment process.

Dewar 1, ¶ 15.
Dewar also discloses that its disclosed interview process involves an
interviewer “marking a score… from 1 to 10” based on the particular
answers of a given applicant to questions provided as a part of an “interview
guide.” Id. at 6, ¶ 135; Fig. 9. Dewar also describes that in one embodiment
of its invention, the determination of a “[p]redictive stack ranking” of a job
applicant may be determined based on giving “different weight to different
questions.” Id. at 3, ¶ 96. Given Dewar’s disclosure, including that noted
above, the Examiner reasoned:
[I]t would have been obvious to one of ordinary skilled in
the art to include [in Farenden] the feature of weights to be
Appeal 2011-005676
Application 12/054,702

11
assigned to said predetermined interview questions and pre-
selected values to be assigned to specific answers to said
predetermined interview questions for purposes of subsequently
determining a quantitative interview score for each said
interview of each said interviewee, as taught by Dewar in order
assign the proper priority for each question.

Ans. 5. The Examiner’s assessment of obvious is, in our view, reasonable
and rationale. That assessment properly considers what a person of ordinary
skill in the art would have understood from the teachings of Dewar in
connection with evaluating applicants via quantitative scores in establishing
applicant rankings in various interview processes, including, for instance,
the process disclosed in Farenden.
We are cognizant of the Appellants’ argument that Dewar’s numerical
scoring of candidates neither amounts to assigning “pre-selected values” to
predetermined interview questions nor constitutes the assigning of “different
weights” to the different questions en route to a quantitative interview score.
App. Br. 23; see also Reply Br. 12-13. We, however, do not agree with that
argument. The Appellants do not explain persuasively why the assignment
of numerical values between 1 and 10 based on questions provided as a part
of an interview guide in conjunction with a system for ranking multiple
applicants is not understood readily as the particular scoring and ranking
procedure called for by the claims.
The Appellants also note that the Examiner has made reference to
paragraph 95 of Dewar in substantiating the proposed rejection, which,
according to the Appellants, is limited to ranking based on “quantitative test
scores[s]” as opposed to such ranking based on the “quantitative interview
Appeal 2011-005676
Application 12/054,702

12
scores” required by the claims. App. Br. 24. In that regard, the Appellants
draw distinction between a “test” and an “interview.”
Paragraph 95 of Dewar describes one embodiment of the invention in
which “stack ranking” of applicants is based on answers provided as part of
an on-line “screening test.” Dewar 3, ¶ 95. At the outset, it is not apparent
that an on-line screening test is not understood reasonably as an “interview.”
However, even if that is the case, it is clear readily that Dewar contemplates,
in other embodiments, that numerical values, as a part of an applicant
evaluation, are provided in response to answers given in connection with
questions in a format that is characterized distinctly as an “interview.” E.g.,
see id. at 6, ¶ 135. To the extent that some portion of the Examiner’s
rejection draws on Dewar’s teachings with respect to scoring of questions
from an on-line “screening test,” a person of ordinary skill in the art, who is
also a person of ordinary creativity, see KSR Int’l Co., 550 U.S. at 421,
would have appreciated that such teachings also would apply to scoring of
questions in an interview.
After careful consideration of the Appellants’ arguments, we are not
persuaded that the prior art fails to account for the above-noted features of
the claims pertaining to the establishment of a “first ranking.”
3. Assessing interviewees based on “qualitative interview
feedback” so as to establish a second ranking

The Appellants also discount the teachings of the prior art in
connection with the claim requirement that a “second ranking” of
interviewees is established based on “qualitative interview feedback.” E.g.,
see App. Br. 25-28. In accounting for that claim requirement, the Examiner
Appeal 2011-005676
Application 12/054,702

13
pointed, in particular, to the teachings of the DOI Ranking Interview
reference. Specifically, the Examiner determined the following:
[T]he [DOI] Ranking Interview provides a teaching of
receiving, by said at least one second computer system, a
second ranking of said all of said interviewees, said second
ranking generated collaboratively by said multiple interviewers
based [on] said qualitative interview feedback and input into
said at least one second computer system (page 3 paragraph[]
6). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary
skill in the art to include the feature a second ranking of said all
of said interviewees, said second ranking generated
collaboratively by said multiple interviews based [on] said
qualitative interviews feedback and input into said at least one
second computer system, as taught by [DOI Ranking
Interview], in order to objectively and fairly perform an
interview for a position.

Ans. 5. The Examiner further explained:
The DOI ranking interview teaches that “the panel
should discuss these rating” and “If some of the rating differs a
lot, the rating should be further discussed” (see DOI Ranking
Interview page 3 paragraph 4). As such, the examiner takes the
position that combination of Farenden, Dewar and DOI ranking
interview teach the feature of “a second ranking that is
generated collaboratively by multiple interviewers based on
qualitative interview feedback comprising subjective comments
about said Interviewee”.

Id. at 10-11.
The Appellants characterize the teachings of the DOI Ranking
Interview reference as being limited strictly to a “numerical (i.e.,
quantitative) rating scale” as opposed to the “qualitative” interview feedback
required by the claims. App. Br. 27; see also Reply Br. 15.
Appeal 2011-005676
Application 12/054,702

14
Even assuming, as is argued by the Appellants, that DOI Ranking
Interview associates a numerical rating scale with some part of its interview
process, it is clear, as noted by the Examiner, that the reference contemplates
discussion among various interviewers in establishing an interviewee score
or ranking. Indeed, in that regard, DOI Ranking Interview explains that such
discussion may change a given interviewers ultimate rating of an
interviewee. See DOI Ranking Interview 3.3 The Appellants do not explain
sufficiently why a rating that may be influenced by discussion among
various interviewers is not understood reasonably as a ranking based on
“qualitative interview feedback.”
Accordingly, we have considered the Appellants’ argument with
respect to the claim requirements concerning the “second ranking” based on
“qualitative interview feedback” but are not persuaded that such
requirements patentably distinguish the claims over the prior art.
B. Claim 8, 9, 11, and 12
Claim 8 is independent and claims 9, 11, and 12 ultimately depend
therefrom. Claim 8 requires features that correspond to those discussed
above in connection with claim 1, and argued by the Appellants as
establishing the non-obviousness of claim 8 (and, by extension, dependent
claims 9, 11, and 12) over the prior art. For essentially the same reasons

3 DOI Ranking Interview is composed of a first sheet described in the header
as being “Page 1 of 1,” and three additional sheets described in their
respective headers as “Page 1 of 3,” “Page 2 of 3,” and “Page 3 of 3.” The
Examiner and the Appellants have regarded the reference as being a total of
four pages in length. Our reference here to page “3” of DOI Ranking
Interview is to the page labeled “Page 2 of 3.”
Appeal 2011-005676
Application 12/054,702

15
discussed above, we also are not persuaded that those features patentably
distinguish the above-noted claims over the prior art.
Claim 8 does differ slightly from claim 1 in requiring that during the
interview process multiple first and second “rankings” are established for a
interviewee as a part of a given interviewee group, where the rankings are
then merged into a “combined first ranking” and a “combined second
ranking.” According to the Appellants, the “merging” process of multiple
rankings of an interviewee to form a combined first ranking and a combined
second ranking renders claim 8 free from the prior art. App. Br. 36-37.
The Examiner generally found that the above-noted feature of claim 8
does not distinguish the claim over the prior art. More specifically, the
Examiner pointed to teachings of Dewar as conveying to one of ordinary
skill in the art that multiple rankings of an interviewee as a part of an
interview process may be combined into a single ranking “in order to
account for different priorities in the interview process.” Ans. 5-6.
We agree with the Examiner that the above-noted feature of claim 8
does not distinguish the claim over the prior art. A skilled artisan would not
have regarded the teachings of the prior art as somehow limited to an initial
evaluation approach of an interviewee using a sole input value characterized
as a singular “ranking,” to the exclusion of using multiple “rankings” that
ultimately are consolidated in a rating value recognizable as a “combined
ranking.” Indeed, Dewar describes that ranking of a given job applicant may
be made against other job applicants, in one circumstance, “in order from
first to last,” while in different situations “other comparative ranking” may
be so employed. Dewar 3, ¶ 93. Dewar also describes that the predictive
stack ranking of a given job applicant may be “update[d]” so as to constitute
Appeal 2011-005676
Application 12/054,702

16
a “re-rank” of the candidate against other job applicants. Id. at ¶¶ 97-98. A
person of ordinary skill in the art viewing the teachings of the prior art as
whole would, in our view, have recognized reasonably that an applicant or
an interviewee that undergoes, for instance, multiple re-ranking is assessed
based on a metric characterized reasonably as a “combined ranking.”
Consequently, we have considered the Appellants’ argument but are
not persuaded that the above-noted step in claim 8 of merging rankings so as
to result in “combined” first and second rankings patentably distinguishes
that claim, or dependent claims 9, 11, and 12, over the prior art.
C. Claims 14 and 17–19
Claim 14 is independent and claims 17–19 depend from claim 14.
Claim 14 is directed to a “system for evaluating multiple interviewees that
are each interviewed for a position by multiple interviewers at an event and
by only one of said multiple interviewers at a time.” The “system” of claim
14 includes features that correspond to the steps discussed above in
conjunction with claim 1. The Appellants make the same arguments with
respect to claim 14 as they did with respect to claim 1.
For essentially the same reasons discussed above in connection with
claim 1, we are not persuaded that the pertinent features of claim 14
distinguish that claim, or dependent claims 17–19, over the prior art.
D. Claim 20
Claim 20 is an independent claim. The preamble of claim 20 reads as
follows:
A computer program product device readable by a
computer and tangibly embodying a program of instructions
executable by said computer to perform a method of evaluating
Appeal 2011-005676
Application 12/054,702

17
a multiple interviewees, said interviewees each being
interviewed for a position by multiple interviewers at an event
and by only one of said multiple interviewers at a time[.]

The referenced method includes steps similar to those discussed above
with respect to claim 1. The Appellants make the same arguments with
respect to claim 20 as they did with respect to claim 1.
For essentially the same reasons discussed above in connection with
claim 1, we are not persuaded that the pertinent features of claim 20
distinguish the claim over the prior art.
E. Claims 4, 5, 11, 12, 17, and 18
Claims 4, 5, 11, 12, 17, and 18 ultimately depend from one of claims
1, 8, and 14.
The Appellant summarizes the content of claims 4, 5, 11, 12, 17, and
18 and certain aspects of the rejections applied to those claims as follows:
In rejecting dependent claims 4-5, 11-12 and 17-18, the Office
Action acknowledged that Dewar, Farenden and [DOI] Ranking
Interview did not disclose the claimed features of receiving a
type-designation for interviews (see dependent claims 4, 11 and
17), receiving different predetermined interview question[s]
dependent upon the type-designation (see dependent claims 4,
11 and 17) and further receiving second weights to be assigned
to the type designations for the purpose of determining the first
ranking(s) (see dependent claims 5, 12 and 18).

App. Br. 53. In accounting for the features added by claims 4, 5, 11, 12, 17,
and 18, the Examiner relied on Bouchard. In particular, with respect to
claims 4, 11, and 17, the Examiner determined the following:
[T]he Bouchard reference provides type-designation for each
said interview (see paragraph 175 “D,I,S,C” factor”) and
receiving different interview question depending upon said
Appeal 2011-005676
Application 12/054,702

18
interview type-designation (see FIG 2c, 2d interviewee question
for type). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of
ordinary skill[] in the art to include the feature of predetermined
interview question for each said interview of each said
interviewee, said predetermined interview question differing
depending upon said interview type-designation, as taught by
Bouchard, in order to better predict the candidates probability
of success (see paragraph 17-18).

Ans. 7. With respect to claims 5, 12, and 18, the Examiner determined:
[T]he Bouchard reference provides a teaching of having a
second weight to be assigned to said type-designations for
purposes of determining said first ranking (see Bouchard
paragraph 78). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of
ordinary skill[] in the art to include the feature of pre-
determined interview question for each said interview of each
said interviewee, said predetermined interview question
differing depending upon said interview type-designation, as
taught by Bouchard, in order to better predict the candidates
probability of success (see paragraph 17-18).

Id. at 7-8.
A portion of Bouchard’s Abstract describing its disclosed invention is
reproduced below:
A method of analyzing the fitness of a candidate for a
specific position comprises benchmarking the position by
specifying weighted position criteria and using managers’ and
top performer’s responses to predictive instruments in the form
of behavior and values questionnaires; scoring the candidate by
computing a weighted average of the candidate’s scores on the
position criteria combined with the candidate’s predictive
instrument scores vis a vis those of the benchmark participants;
and reporting to the hiring manger the candidate’s overall score
and, preferably, individual scores for each continuum of the
predictive instruments.

Appeal 2011-005676
Application 12/054,702

19
As a part of Bouchard’s candidate analysis, and as noted by the
Examiner, Bouchard describes the establishment of a candidate’s “personal
profile” based on criteria characterized as “DISC” (dominance-influence-
steadiness-compliance). See Bouchard 2, ¶ 15. Bouchard also describes that
the DISC criteria, as well as a variety of other criteria, may be “weighted” en
route to a candidate’s assessment. Id. at ¶ 17. In light of the teachings of
Bouchard, the Examiner determined that the various features of claims 4, 5,
11, 12, 17, and 18 including those associated with “receiving a type-
designation for interviews,” “receiving different predetermined interview
questions” based on the type-designation, and receiving “second weights” to
be assigned to the type designations are satisfied. Ans. 7-8.
The Appellants generally disputes that Bouchard discloses the added
features of claims 4, 5, 11, 12, 17, and 18, but provides little by way of
explanation as to why that is so. See App. Br. 53-54. In considering
Bouchard, it is clear that the reference describes a detailed evaluation
process that includes analysis based on several criteria, including the above-
noted “DISC” criteria, the use of interview questions in connection with
those criteria, and a process of weighting resultant scores associated with
assessment that factors in those criteria. On this record, we are not
persuaded that the noted features of claims 4, 5, 11, 12, 17, and 18
patentably distinguish those claims over the prior art.
IV. CONCLUSION
We have fully considered the record before us, including the
Appellants’ briefings. For the reasons discussed above, we are not
persuaded that the Examiner was incorrect in rejecting claims 1, 2, 4, 5, 7–9,
11, 12, 14 and 17–20 over the prior art.
Appeal 2011-005676
Application 12/054,702

20
V. ORDER
The Examiner’s decision to reject claims 1, 2, 4, 5, 7–9, 11, 12, 14
and 17–20 over the prior art 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).

AFFIRMED