Ex Parte Farenden

Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences

Jun 21, 2007

09800986 (B.P.A.I. Jun. 21, 2007)

The opinion in support of the decision being entered today
is not binding precedent of the Board.

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
____________

BEFORE THE BOARD OF PATENT APPEALS
AND INTERFERENCES
____________

Ex parte ROSE MARY FARENDEN
____________

Appeal 2007-0611
Application 09/800,986
Technology Center 3600
____________

Decided: June 21, 2007
____________

Before HUBERT C. LORIN, JENNIFER D. BAHR and LINDA E. HORNER,
Administrative Patent Judges.

HORNER, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL

STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Appellant seeks our review under 35 U.S.C. § 134 (2002) of the Examiner’s
final rejection of claims 1, 3, 4, 6-8, and 11-13, all the claims currently pending in
the application. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b) (2002).
Appeal 2007-0611
Application 09/800,986

2

SUMMARY OF DECISION
We AFFIRM.

THE INVENTION
Appellant’s claimed invention is a system for recruiting candidates for
employment (Specification 1:13-15). Claim 1, reproduced below, is representative
of the subject matter on appeal.
1. An internet-based system for recruiting candidates for employment
having at least one server computer operably connected to at least one
database and serving a plurality of client computers, the at least one server
computer being configured to:
receive input defining a plurality of employment requisitions wherein
each employment requisition has associated candidate matching criteria;
host an interactive interface for presenting a plurality of candidates
with an employment skills questionnaire;
assess each candidate based on a comparison between each
candidate’s employment skills and the candidate matching criteria;
host an interactive interface for allocating the employer-hosted
recruiting event invitations to candidates wherein the invitations are
allocated based on the assessment;
host an interface for receiving an assessment of each candidate
attending the employer-hosted recruiting event;
host an interface for presenting each candidate’s assessment in real-
time during the employer-hosted recruiting event;
host an interface for presenting a candidate assessment indicating how
well the candidate’s employment skills match the candidate matching
criteria, as compared to other candidates; and
host an interface for selecting candidates for hire based on the
assessment wherein the system automatically sends selected candidates an
Appeal 2007-0611
Application 09/800,986

3
offer letter in an electronic format prior to the conclusion of the employer-
hosted recruiting event.

THE REJECTION
The Examiner relies upon the following as evidence of unpatentability:
Puram US 6,289,340 B1 Sep. 11, 2001
Smith US 6,701,313 B1 Mar. 2, 2004
The following rejection is before us for review:
Claims 1, 3, 4, 6-8, and 11-13 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a)
(2002) as unpatentable over Smith in view of Puram (Answer 3).

ISSUE
Appellant contends that the Examiner erred in rejecting the claims as
unpatentable over the combination of Smith and Puram because the combination
fails to disclose each and every claimed element (Br. 3). More specifically,
Appellant contends that (1) the “interview notes” of Smith do not “constitute an
‘assessment’ upon which a hiring decision is subsequently made” (Br. 5) and (2)
“Smith does not teach a separate interface for presenting each candidate’s
assessment in real-time during the employer-hosted recruiting event” (Br. 5)
(emphasis in original). The Examiner finds (1) the interview of Smith is
equivalent to the claimed employer-hosted recruiting-event, (2) Smith teaches an
interface for recording and displaying assessments of candidates during the
interview, and (3) the feature of enabling multiple specialists to participate in the
assessment/hiring process in real time during a recruiting event, relied upon by
Appeal 2007-0611
Application 09/800,986

4
Appellant, is not recited in the rejected claims (Answer 8). The issue before us is
whether Appellant has shown that the Examiner erred in rejecting claims 1, 3, 4, 6-
8, and 11-13 as unpatentable over the combination of Smith and Puram.

FINDINGS OF FACT
The relevant facts include the following:
1. Smith teaches a method and apparatus for automatically matching
activities or entities on the basis of data objects corresponding thereto (Smith,
col. 1, ll. 18-21).
2. Smith teaches that the prior art suffers from the general problem of
“how to bring together the right person and the right job” (Smith, col. 1, ll. 48-50).
Smith discloses that Smith’s invention “addresses the problem of matching
coincidental needs [e.g., of employer and employee] relating to an activity or entity
[e.g., a job]” (Smith, col. 2, ll. 48-49).
3. One of the first steps which must be undertaken by a job provider is to
populate a database by generating a job profile 123 by quantifying the job using a
classification system (Smith, col. 15, ll. 54-60 and Fig. 6).
4. Similarly, a job seeker must create a personal profile 126 by
quantifying the job seeker’s personal profile (e.g., skills) using a classification
index (Smith, col. 15, ll. 60-64).
5. The job seeker’s personal profile 126 is compared with the current job
profiles 123, and a job summary screen 124 displaying the matches is provided to
the job seeker (Smith, col. 15, l. 65 to col. 16, l. 11).
Appeal 2007-0611
Application 09/800,986

5
6. The job seeker must browse through the information on the job
summary screen and decide which jobs to apply for by clicking on the associated
link (Smith, col. 16, ll. 12-15).
7. The job seeker then completes the details required on a job apply
screen and this information is submitted back to the web server 10 over the Internet
and, if required, a testing screen is displayed to the job seeker in order for the job
seeker to take a test (Smith, col. 16, ll. 17-21).
8. The job seeker takes the test and the answers are passed back to the
web server 10 for evaluation as to whether the job seeker has passed or failed
(Smith, col. 16, ll. 23-26).
9. If it is determined that the job seeker passed the test a screen is
displayed to allow the job seeker to enter available interview times and these
details are sent back to the web server 10 (Smith, col. 16, ll. 29-33).
10. The job provider having been notified of a match can access the web
server 10 to review the job seeker’s details, and if they are acceptable progresses to
an interview request screen (Smith, col. 16, ll. 33-38).
11. An interview request/invitation is emailed to the job seeker who then
indicates acceptance or declination of the interview (Smith, col. 16, ll. 38-43).
12. During an interview, “an interview notes screen is displayed to the job
provider … upon which notes can be made and links are provided to the job
seeker’s personal details” (Smith, col. 16, ll. 54-58).
13. If the job seeker is suitable for the job, a job offer screen is then
displayed to the job provider for the job provider to fill in the appropriate details to
Appeal 2007-0611
Application 09/800,986

6
generate an offer to the job seeker (Smith, col. 16, ll. 58-65).
14. Smith does not teach an interface for presenting a candidate
assessment indicating how well the candidate’s employment skills match the
candidate matching criteria, as compared to other candidates.
15. Puram teaches a system, and method for selecting a candidate from a
pool of candidates for a position based on the skills held by the candidates (Puram,
col. 1, ll. 7-14).
16. According to the candidate matching process of Puram, once a sub-
pool of candidates of satisfactory size is identified, the next task is to determine
which of the candidates in the sub-pool has skills and experience that most closely
match the skills needed or desired for the position (Puram, col. 7, ll. 48-51).
17. The matching process is completed by comparing each candidate’s
scores for a particular skill with the employer’s maximum desired score for that
skill, each candidate’s scores for all the skills are then added together to yield a
total that is used to compare candidates. The candidate’s scores are presented in a
ranked list of the most closely matched candidates (Puram, col. 7, l. 50 to col. 8,
l.11 and Fig. 11a-11b).
18. The customary meaning of assessment is a determination of “the
importance, size, or value of” Merriam-Webster’s Collegiate Dictionary 74 (11th
ed. 2005).
19. Appellant’s Specification does not provide a specific meaning for the
term assessment, nor does it utilize the term contrary to its customary meaning.

Appeal 2007-0611
Application 09/800,986

7
PRINCIPLES OF LAW

The Examiner bears the initial burden of presenting a prima facie case of
obviousness in rejecting claims under 35 U.S.C. § 103. See In re Rijckaert,
9 F.3d 1531, 1532, 28 USPQ2d 1955, 1956 (Fed. Cir. 1993).
In rejecting claims under 35 U.S.C. § 103, it is incumbent upon the
Examiner to establish a factual basis to support the legal conclusion of
obviousness. See In re Fine, 837 F.2d 1071, 1073, 5 USPQ2d 1596, 1598 (Fed.
Cir. 1988). In so doing, the Examiner must make the factual determinations set
forth in Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 17, 148 USPQ 459, 467 (1966),
viz., (1) the scope and content of the prior art; (2) the differences between the prior
art and the claims at issue; and (3) the level of ordinary skill in the art. “[T]he
examiner bears the initial burden, on review of the prior art or on any other ground,
of presenting a prima facie case of unpatentability.” In re Oetiker, 977 F.2d 1443,
1445, 24 USPQ2d 1443, 1444 (Fed. Cir. 1992). Furthermore, “‘there must be
some articulated reasoning with some rational underpinning to support the legal
conclusion of obviousness’ . . . . [H]owever, the analysis need not seek out precise
teachings directed to the specific subject matter of the challenged claim, for a court
can take account of the inferences and creative steps that a person of ordinary skill
in the art would employ.” KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 127 S.Ct. 1727, 1741, 82
USPQ2d 1385, 1396 (2007) (quoting In re Kahn, 441 F.3d 977, 988, 78 USPQ2d
1329, 1336 (Fed. Cir. 2006)). Obviousness is then determined on the basis of the
evidence as a whole and the relative persuasiveness of the arguments. See Oetiker,
Appeal 2007-0611
Application 09/800,986

8
977 F.2d at 1445, 24 USPQ2d at 1444; In re Piasecki, 745 F.2d 1468, 1472, 223
USPQ 785, 788 (Fed. Cir. 1984).
The Examiner may take notice of facts or common knowledge in the art
which are capable of such instant and unquestionable demonstration as to defy
dispute. In re Ahlert, 424 F.2d 1088, 1091, 165 USPQ 418, 420 (CCPA 1970). If
Appellant fails to challenge the Examiner’s notice and it is clear that he has been
given ample opportunity to make such challenge, the Examiner’s finding will be
considered conclusive. Id. at 1091-92, 165 USPQ at 421. To challenge the
Examiner’s notice, Appellant must present evidence to the contrary. Compare In
re Knapp-Monarch Co. 296 F.2d 230, 232 USPQ 6, 8 (CCPA 1961) (considering
challenge to taking of judicial notice by Trademark Trial and Appeal Board).

ANALYSIS
Appellant’s main argument for patentability is based on the assumption that
the invention requires separate interfaces for receiving and presenting the
assessment of a candidate during an employer-hosted recruiting event. However,
the claimed invention, as defined by claim 1, requires only at least one server
configured to host an interface for receiving and an interface for presenting.
Nowhere in claim 1 is there any indication that a separate interface must be used
for receiving and presenting the assessment as asserted by Appellant.
Appellant presents assertions regarding various aspects and/or benefits of the
invention, such as it being directed to a multi-faceted system for assessing
employee candidates in real time, and that the separate interfaces enable different
Appeal 2007-0611
Application 09/800,986

9
hiring specialists to participate together in real-time during a recruiting event
(Br. 4). However, as noted by the Examiner, these features/benefits are not recited
in the claimed invention. “Many of appellant’s arguments fail from the outset
because, … they are not based on limitations appearing in the claims … .” In re
Self, 671 F.2d 1344, 1348, 213 USPQ 1, 5 (CCPA 1982).
Appellant further contends, that “there is no teaching that the ‘interview
notes’ [of Smith] constitute an ‘assessment’ upon which a hiring decision is
subsequently made” (Br. 5). We disagree. The customary meaning of an
assessment is a determination of the importance, size, or value (Finding of
Fact 18-19). Smith teaches displaying an interview notes screen to the job
provider upon which notes can be made and links are provided to the job seeker’s
personal details (Finding of Fact 12). Clearly, these interview notes are the job
provider’s assessment of the job seeker’s qualifications for the job, which are
utilized in the determination of whether or not to hire the candidate. As such, we
sustain the Examiner’s rejection of claim 1 as unpatentable over Smith and Puram.
Appellant did not present any arguments as to the separate patentability of
dependent claims 31, 4, and 6. As such, theses claims fall with claim 1.
Appellant further contends, with regard to claims 7, 8, and 11-13, that the
Examiner failed to establish a prima facie case of obviousness because the
Examiner “has provided no factual evidence whatsoever to support his rejection of
these claims” (Br. 5). The Examiner holds that the official notice statements,

1 We note that claim 3 depends from canceled claim 2. Should further prosecution
of these claims occur, claim 3 should be amended to properly depend from a
pending claim.
Appeal 2007-0611
Application 09/800,986

10
which were originally made in the Action mailed May 31, 2005, were not properly
traversed and, therefore, “the limitations under Official Notice are taken as
admitted prior art” (Answer 9). We sustain the Examiner.
If Appellant fails to challenge the Examiner’s notice and it is clear that he
has been given ample opportunity to make such challenge, the Examiner’s finding
will be considered conclusive. In re Ahlert, 424, F2d 1088, 1091, 165 USPQ 418,
421 (CCPA 1970). To challenge the Examiner’s notice, Appellant must present
evidence to the contrary. Compare In re Knapp-Monarch Co. 296 F.2d 230, 232
132 USPQ 6, 8 (CCPA 1961) (considering challenge to taking of judicial notice by
Trademark Trial and Appeal Board). In the present case, Appellant does not
present any evidence or make any assertions rebutting the Examiner’s statements,
but merely asserts that the Examiner has not provided any factual evidence.
Accordingly, even if Appellant’s statements were considered timely, Appellant still
fails to properly challenge the Examiner’s statements. As such, we sustain the
Examiner’s rejections of claims 7, 8, and 11-13 as unpatentable over Smith and
Puram.

CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
We conclude that Appellant has not shown that the Examiner erred in
rejecting claims 1, 3, 4, 6-8, and 11-13 under 35 U.S.C. §103(a) as unpatentable
over Smith and Puram.

Appeal 2007-0611
Application 09/800,986

11
DECISION
The decision of the Examiner to reject claims 1, 3, 4, 6-8, and 11-13 under
35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Smith and Puram 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)(iv) (2006).
AFFIRMED

hh

BROOKS KUSHMAN P.C./FGTL
1000 TOWN CENTER
22ND FLOOR
SOUTHFIELD, MI 48075-1238