Ex Parte Gupta et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Jun 24, 2016

13598330 (P.T.A.B. Jun. 24, 2016)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE
13/598,330 08/29/2012
89885 7590 06/24/2016
FERENCE & ASSOCIATES LLC
409 BROAD STREET
PITTSBURGH, PA 15143
FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
Monika Gupta
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.
IN920110119US2(790.127C) 4607
EXAMINER
GURSKI, AMANDA KAREN
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
3623
MAILDATE DELIVERY MODE
06/24/2016 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 MONIKA GUPTA, DEBDOOT MUKHERJEE,
VIBHA SINGHAL SINHA, LIANGJIE ZHANG,
and NIANJUN ZHOU
Appeal 2014-003241 1
Application 13/598,3302
Technology Center 3600
Before MURRIEL E. CRAWFORD, NINA L. MEDLOCK, 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 1-13.3 We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We AFFIRM.
1 Our decision references Appellants' Appeal Brief ("Br.," filed October
24, 2013) and the Examiner's Answer ("Ans.," mailed November 6, 2013),
and Final Office Action ("Final Act.," mailed January 31, 2013).
2 Appellants identify International Business Machines Corporation as the
real party in interest (Br. 3).
3 The instant appeal is related to Appeal No. 2014-002137.
Appeal2014-003241
Application 13/598,330
CLAIMED fNVENTION
Appellants' claimed invention relates generally to "[ m ]ethods and
arrangements for dynamically facilitating project assembly" (Abstract).
Claim 1, reproduced below with added bracketed notations, is
illustrative of the subject matter on appeal:
1. A method comprising:
[a] utilizing a processor to execute computer code
configured to perform the steps of:
[b] submitting a project plan with a chosen set of plan
components;
[ c] querying a cloud portal for information on the chosen
plan components;
[ d] receiving from the cloud portal information on the
chosen plan components;
[ e] generating plan recommendations based on the
received information, wherein the plan recommendations include
at least one recommendation of another plan having at least one
plan component differing from the chosen plan components; and
[ f] selecting a recommended plan.
REJECTIONS
Claims 1-8, 11, and 12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) as
anticipated by Motwani (US 2007 /0260502 Al, pub. Nov. 8, 2007).
Claims 9, 10, and 13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as obvious
over Motwani and Dromgold (US 2007/0150327 Al, pub. June 28, 2007).
ANALYSIS
Independent claim 1 and dependent claims 2---8, 11, and 12
We are not persuaded that the Examiner erred in rejecting claim 1
under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) because Motwani does not disclose
"recommending another plan with at least one plan component differing
2
Appeal2014-003241
Application 13/598,330
from the chosen plan components," as required by limitation [ e] in
independent claim 1 (Br. 11-12). Instead, we agree with, and adopt the
Examiner's findings, as set forth at pages 3-5 of the Final Office Action (see
Final Act. 3-5 (citing Motwani i-fi-f 18, 19, 22, 24, 28, 32, and Fig. 2, items
201 a---c) ), and adopt the Examiner's response to Appellants' arguments, as
set forth at pages 4---6 of the Answer (see Ans. 4--5 (citing Motwani i-fi-123,
32, and Fig. 2, items 201a---e)).
In this regard, we note that Appellants argue that "[i]llustrative
embodiments of Motwani are apparent from Figs. 5 and 6 thereof, and their
attendant description. However, there is lacking therein any teaching or
suggestion of recommending another plan with at least one plan component
differing from the chosen plan components" (Br. 11 ). Appellants' argument
ignores the Examiner's pinpoint citations to Motwani and the Examiner's
explanation of how quotations from those pinpoint citations correspond to
specific claim language (see e.g., Final Act. 4--5; see also Ans. 4--5).
Appellants, thus, offer no substantive argument nor identify with
particularity any findings by the Examiner that are unreasonable or
unsupported, and as such, have not identified error in the Examiner's
interpretation of either the claim language or the cited reference.
In the absence of substantive arguments to rebut the specific factual
findings made by the Examiner in support of the anticipation determination,
we are not persuaded that the Examiner erred in rejecting claim 1 under
35 U.S.C. § 102(b). Therefore, we sustain the Examiner's rejection of
claim 1under35 U.S.C. § 102(b). We also sustain the Examiner's rejection
of claims 2-8, 11, and 12, which were not separately argued.
3
Appeal2014-003241
Application 13/598,330
Dependent claims 9, 10, and 13
Appellants do not present any arguments for the separate patentability
of dependent claims 9, 10, and 13 except to assert that they are allowable
"[b ]y virtue of proper dependence from Claim 1" (Br. 12). However, we are
not persuaded for the reasons outlined above that the Examiner erred in
rejecting independent claim 1under35 U.S.C. § 102(b). Therefore, we
sustain the Examiner's rejection under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) of claims 9, 10,
and 13 for the same reasons.
DECISION
The Examiner's rejections of claims 1-13 under 35 U.S.C. §§ 102(b)
and 103(a) are sustained.
No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with
this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a)(l )(iv).
AFFIRMED
4