Ex Parte Fama et al

Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences

Jul 25, 2011

11478714 (B.P.A.I. Jul. 25, 2011)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
____________

BEFORE THE BOARD OF PATENT APPEALS
AND INTERFERENCES
____________

Ex parte JASON FAMA, URI PELEG, MICHAEL R. BOURKE, JR.,
RICHARD M. LAWRENCE, and SAMEET VASANT JOSHI
___________

Appeal 2010-011347
Application 11/478,714
Technology Center 3600
____________

Before JOSEPH A. FISCHETTI, BIBHU R. MOHANTY, and
MEREDITH C. PETRAVICK, Administrative Patent Judges.

PETRAVICK, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL
Appeal 2010-011347
Application 11/478,714

2
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Jason Fama, et al. (Appellants) seek our review under 35 U.S.C. § 134
(2002) of the final rejection of claims 1-20. We have jurisdiction under 35
U.S.C. § 6(b) (2002).

SUMMARY OF DECISION
We REVERSE. 1

THE INVENTION
This invention is systems and methods for scheduling a workforce.
Spec., para. [0004].
Claim 1, reproduced below, is illustrative of the subject matter on
appeal.
1. A method of workforce scheduling, comprising
the steps of:
in an instruction execution system, receiving
a shift activity template describing a worker
activity performed during a shift, the template
comprising a range of start times, a
start type, and a variable length for the activity,
wherein the shift activity template defines the
variable length using a period attribute and a count
attribute, wherein the period attribute is a length of
time and the count attribute is a range representing
a number of periods available for scheduling, the
activity being associated with a queue;

1 Our decision will make reference to the Appellants’ Appeal Brief (“App.
Br.,” filed May 20, 2010) and Reply Brief (“Reply Br.,” filed Aug. 9, 2010),
and the Examiner’s Answer (“Ans.,” mailed Jun. 9, 2010).

Appeal 2010-011347
Application 11/478,714

3
in the instruction execution system,
receiving an association between the shift activity
template and at least one worker;
in the instruction execution system, creating
a plurality of schedulable objects from the shift
activity template based on the period attribute and
the count attribute, wherein each of the
schedulable objects comprises a length equal to the
length of time of the period attribute and the
number of the schedulable objects created is equal
to the highest value of the range of the count
attribute;
in the instruction execution system, creating
a plurality of potential bindings for each of the
schedulable objects based on a plurality of
available timeslots within the shift, the range of
start times, and the start type;
in the instruction execution system, selecting
a first one of the potential bindings for association
with a first one of the schedulable objects in
accordance with a workload forecast and schedule
constraints; and
in the instruction execution system,
producing a schedule by applying the first one of
the potential bindings to the first one of the
schedulable objects.

THE REJECTION
The Examiner relies upon the following as evidence of
unpatentability:
Crockett US 5,325,292 Jun. 28, 1994
Roger Klungle, Simulation of a Claims Call Center: A Success and a
Failure, Proceedings of the 1999 Winter Simulation Conference,
1648-53 (Dec 1999). (Hereinafter, Klungle.)

Appeal 2010-011347
Application 11/478,714

4
The following rejection is before us for review:
1. Claims 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Crockett and Klungle.

ISSUE
The issue is whether the Examiner erred in finding that claims 1-20
were unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) over Crockett and Klungle.
Specifically, the issue is whether Crockett’s tour template of Figure 5
teaches a shift activity template that comprises a range of start times for an
activity.

FINDINGS OF FACT
We find that the following enumerated findings of fact (FF) are
supported by at least a preponderance of the evidence. Ethicon, Inc. v.
Quigg, 849 F.2d 1422, 1427 (Fed. Cir. 1988) (explaining the general
evidentiary standard for proceedings before the Office).
1. Figure 5 of Crockett is reproduced below.
App
App

2

in Fi
comp
and A
start
depi
(see
relat
eal 2010-0
lication 11
Figur
break
. Crock
relati

The Exa
gure 5 of C
rises a ran
ns. 9-12.
Claim 1
times . . .
cted in Fig
Ans. 5) an
ive break t
11347
/478,714
e 5 above
timing m
ett does n
ve, absolu
miner and
rockett te
ge of star

recites “a
for the act
ure 5 of C
d the reaso
iming met

depicts a t
ethod code
ot include
te, or cente
AN
the Appel
aches the
t times for
shift activ
ivity.” Th
rockett to
ns that, ba
hod (FF 1

5
our templa
.
any descr
red “break
ALYSIS
lants dispu
claimed sh
the activit
ity templa
e Examine
teach the c
sed on Fi
), an activi
te that inc
iption, oth
timing m
te whethe
ift activity
y. App. B
te . . . com
r relies up
laimed sh
gure 5 dep
ty will ha

ludes a fie
er than Fig
ethod.”
r the temp
template
r. 8, Reply
prising a r
on the tou
ift activity
icting a fie
ve a range

ld for a
ure 5, of a
late shown
that
Br. 2-3,
ange of
r template
template
ld for a
of start

Appeal 2010-011347
Application 11/478,714

6
times relative to the start of a shift (Ans. 9-11). However, as the Appellants
argue (see Reply Br. 2), Crockett does not include a description of a relative
break timing method that supports the Examiner’s reasoning. See FF 2.
Further, as the Appellants also argue (see Reply Br. 2-3), even assuming that
the Examiner reasoning is correct, Crockett’s tour template does not
comprise this range of start times. See FF 1. Therefore, we find that the
Examiner erred in finding that Crockett’s tour template, depicted in Figure 5,
taught the claimed shift activity template that comprises a range of start
times for the activity.
We note that the Examiner provides no other evidence or rationale
with logical underpinnings to show that a shift activity template comprising
a range of start times for the activity would have been obvious.
Accordingly, we find that the Examiner has failed to establish a prima facie
showing of obviousness in rejecting claim 1 as unpatentable under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a) over Crockett and Klungle.
We also note that independent claims 7 and 15 recite similar
limitations which also require a shift activity template that comprises a range
of start times for the activity and the Examiner has rejected these claims
using the same rationale used to reject claim 1 (see Ans. 5). Accordingly,
we reverse the rejection of claims 1, 7, 15, and claims 2-6, 8-14, and 16-20,
dependent thereon, under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over
Crockett and Klungle.

Appeal 2010-011347
Application 11/478,714

7
DECISION
The decision of the Examiner to reject claims 1-20 is reversed.

REVERSED

hh