Ex Parte Friedlander et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Feb 11, 2016

12851995 (P.T.A.B. Feb. 11, 2016)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
12/851,995 08/06/2010 ROBERT R. FRIEDLANDER
79230 7590 02/16/2016
Law Office of Jim Boice
3839 Bee Cave Road
Suite 201
West Lake Hills, TX 78746
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
ATTORNEY DOCKET NO. CONFIRMATION NO.
END920100109US1 2911
EXAMINER
SWARTZ, STEPHENS
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
3623
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
02/16/2016 ELECTRONIC
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.
Notice of the Office communication was sent electronically on above-indicated "Notification Date" to the
following e-mail address( es):
J ennifer@BoiceIP.com
Emily@BoiceIP.com
Jim@BoiceIP.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte ROBERT R. FRIEDLANDER,
GERMAN S. GOLDSZMIDT, JAMES R. KRAEMER,
ROBIN LOUGEE, and KIRILL M. OSIPOV
Appeal2013-008933 1
Application 12/851,9952
Technology Center 3600
Before BIBHU R. MOHANTY, BRUCE T. WIEDER, and
MATTHEWS. MEYERS, Administrative Patent Judges.
MEYERS, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Appellants appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Examiner's final
rejection of claims 1-20. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We REVERSE.
1 Our decision references Appellants' Appeal Brief ("Appeal Br.," filed
February 28, 2013) and Reply Brief ("Reply Br.," filed July 8, 2013), and
the Examiner's Answer ("Ans.," mailed May 10, 2013) and Final Office
Action ("Final Act.," mailed November 8, 2012).
2 Appellants identify International Business Machines Corporation as the
real party in interest (Appeal Br. 2).
Appeal2013-008933
Application 12/851,995
CLAIMED fNVENTION
Appellants' claimed invention relates generally "to the use of
computers to allocate human resources" (Spec. i-f 1 ).
Claim 1, reproduced below, is illustrative of the subject matter on
appeal:
1. A computer implemented method of allocating
human resources to a cohort, the computer implemented method
compnsmg:
[a] a processor identifying at least one attribute held by
each member of a group of human resources;
[b] the processor receiving, from a planned cohort, a
request for multiple human resources that collectively possess a
set of predefined attributes, wherein no single human resource
possesses all of the predefined attributes;
[ c] the processor identifying a set of human resources that
satisfies the request; and
[ d] the processor assigning the set of human resources to
the planned cohort.
REJECTIONS
Claims 1, 2, 15, and 17-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
unpatentable over Weber (US 2004/0243422 Al, pub. Dec. 2, 2004) and
Bowman-Amuah (US 6,578,068 Bl, iss. June 10, 2003).
Claim 3 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over
Weber, Bowman-Amuah, and Galaviz (US 2011/0054968 Al, pub. Mar. 3,
2011).
Claims 5, 6, 11, and 13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
unpatentable over Weber, Bowman-Amuah, and Woodings (US
2004/0267595 Al, pub. Dec. 30, 2004).
2
Appeal2013-008933
Application 12/851,995
Claims 12 and 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
unpatentable over Weber, Bowman-Amuah, and Bullock (US 7,457,764 Bl,
iss. Nov. 25, 2008).
Claim 14 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over
Weber, Bowman-Amuah, and Black (US 2009/0112670 Al, pub. Apr. 30,
2009).
Claim 4 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over
Weber, Bowman-Amuah, and Desmond (US 2005/0198486 Al, pub. Sept.
8, 2005).
Claims 7, 9, and 10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
unpatentable over Weber, Bowman-Amuah, and Smetters (US
2008/0288862 Al, pub. Nov. 20, 2008).
Claim 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over
Weber, Bowman-Amuah, and Hughes (US 8,204,779 Bl, iss. June 19,
2012).
ANALYSIS
Obviousness
Independent claim 1 and dependent claims 2-16
We are persuaded by Appellants' argument that the Examiner erred in
rejecting claim 1 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) because the combination of
Weber and Bowman-Amuah fails to disclose or suggest "the processor
receiving, from a planned cohort, a request for multiple human resources
that collectively possess a set of predefined attributes, wherein no single
human resource possesses all of the predefined attributes," as recited by
limitation [b] of independent claim 1 (Appeal Br. 5-8; Reply Br. 2). More
3
Appeal2013-008933
Application 12/851,995
particularly, Appellants argue the combination of Weber and Bowman-
Amuah fails to disclose or suggest "the claimed feature of no single person
possessing all of the skills needed to be placed in a cohort ('no single human
resource possesses all of the predefined attributes')" (Appeal Br. 8).
The Examiner maintains the rejection is proper and relies on Weber to
disclose "the processor receiving, from a planned cohort, a request for
multiple human resources that collectively possess a set of predefined
attributes" (Final Act. 7 (citing Weber i-fi-122 and 33) (emphasis omitted)),
but acknowledges that Weber does not explicitly disclose "wherein no single
human resource possesses all of the predefined attributes" (Final Act. 7
(emphasis omitted)). To cure this deficiency, the Examiner directs our
attention to Bowman-Amuah, at column 147, lines 25-38, as disclosing the
missing feature (Final Act. 7-8).
Weber is directed to an event management system which messages or
notifies a defined population in response to an event (Weber i12). Weber
describes that its system can target a dynamic group of individuals based on
"parameters that govern the target population to message for a given event"
(id. at i13). Weber discloses that
[b ]y aligning the data on people (e.g., skills, schedule, and
location) with the data about the community in which they
operate (e.g., people on the same project, people having the same
calendar item), the relevant user population can be accurately
identified and messaged, based on the nature of the event.
(Id. at i14). Weber further discloses that"[ o ]ne or more descriptors of a
population relevant to the event can be determined based on the received
event information" (id. at i122). Weber describes that these descriptors can
be related to "personal information that can affect a person's ability to
handle a particular event, such as skills, affiliation, and location
4
Appeal2013-008933
Application 12/851,995
information" (id.). Weber discloses that "[a] subset of people in the
organization relevant to the event can be identified based on the one or more
descriptors" (id. at i-f 23) and "[ o ]ne or more messages, including a request
for response, can be sent to the identified subset of people" (id. at i-f 24).
Bowman-Amuah is directed to a system for "distributing incoming
requests from a user interface amongst a client and server components for
optimizing usage of resources" (Bowman-Amuah, col. 2, 11. 18-20).
Bowman-Amuah discloses that competency in multiple technologies may be
required, and as such, "it is often necessary to develop a broad portfolio of
skills on a project" (id. at col. 147, 11. 25-29). Bowman-Amuah further
discloses that "[i]t is important to develop an early understanding of the
different skills required and how they can be developed and leveraged across
a project" (id. at col. 147, 11. 29-31).
We have reviewed the cited portions of Weber and Bowman-Amuah,
and we agree with Appellants that the cited portions do not disclose or
suggest "the processor receiving, from a planned cohort, a request for
multiple human resources that collectively possess a set of predefined
attributes, wherein no single human resource possesses all of the predefined
attributes" (emphasis added), as recited in claim 1. We fail to see, and the
Examiner does not adequately explain, how Bowman-Amuah's disclosure
that "it is often necessary to develop a broad portfolio of skills on a project"
and competency in multiple technologies discloses or suggests "a request for
multiple human resources that collectively possess a set of predefined
attributes, wherein no single human resource possesses all of the predefined
attributes," as recited by limitation [b] of independent claim 1.
5
Appeal2013-008933
Application 12/851,995
In the Response to Argument portion of the Examiner's Answer, the
Examiner maintains that "Weber par. [0022] was used to address this
limitation claimed limitation [sic], not Bowman-Amuah" (Ans. 5---6 (citing
Weber i-fi-122 and 24)). More particularly, the Examiner finds
Par. [0022] of Weber discloses that a known group of people are
identified that have specific skills. Some of these people are
already on the project while others are needed to add to the
current population. If there [are] already people working on the
project, indicating that they were already supposed to be there
(i.e. planned) and more are needed, this would indicate that there
is no single human resource that provides all the needed skills for
the project. Furthermore, par. [0024] of Weber discloses that a
request can be made to add specifically identified individuals as
needed. Overall this indicates that Weber discloses receiving a
need to add to an already planned amount of people, more people
because skills are needed and more than one person is needed
which indicates none have all the skills.
(Ans. 5---6). The difficulty with the Examiner's current position, as noted by
Appellants (see Reply Br. 2), is that "there is nothing to suggest, in the prior
art, that the call for additional help implies that no single person on the
present team S can make up a complete team C that is capable of handling a
project" (id.). In this regard, Weber is concerned with creating a team of
workers that meet all of the parameters of an event (see Weber i-fi-12--4).
And, although Weber creates defined populations of workers with a variety
of skills (id. at i122), Weber does not preclude any of the workers from
possessing all of the requisite parameters, i.e., predefined attributes, and as
such fails to disclose or suggest "a request for multiple human resources that
collectively possess a set of predefined attributes, wherein no single human
resource possesses all of the predefined attributes," as recited by limitation
[b] of claim 1.
6
Appeal2013-008933
Application 12/851,995
In view of the foregoing, we do not sustain the Examiner's rejection
of claim 1under35 U.S.C. § 103(a). For the same reasons, we also do not
sustain the Examiner's rejection of claims 2-16, which depend from claim 1.
Independent claims 17 and 19, and dependent claims 18 and 20
Independent claims 1 7 and 19 include language substantially similar
to the language of independent claim 1. Therefore, we do not sustain the
Examiner's rejection under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) of independent claims 17 and
19, and claims 18 and 20, which depend therefrom, for the same reasons set
forth above with respect to independent claim 1.
DECISION
The Examiner's rejections of claims 1-20 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a)
are reversed.
REVERSED
7