Ex Parte Gupta et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

May 3, 2016

13192565 (P.T.A.B. May. 3, 2016)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE
13/192,565 07/28/2011
89885 7590 05/04/2016
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.
IN9201 l Ol l 9US 1
(790.127)
CONFIRMATION NO.
6289
EXAMINER
GURSKI, AMANDA KAREN
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
3623
MAILDATE DELIVERY MODE
05/04/2016 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
Appeal2014-002137 1
Application 13/192,5652
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 14--25. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We AFFIRM.
1. Our decision references Appellants' Appeal Brief ("Br.," filed July
1, 2013) and the Examiner's Answer ("Ans.," mailed September 25, 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).
Appeal2014-002137
Application 13/192,565
CLAIMED INVENTION
Appellants' claimed invention relates generally to "[ m ]ethods and
arrangements for dynamically facilitating project assembly" (Abstract).
Claim 14, reproduced below with added bracketed notations, is
illustrative of the subject matter on appeal:
14. An apparatus comprising:
[a] at least one processor; and
[b] a computer readable storage medium having computer
readable program code embodied therewith and executable by
the at least one processor, the computer readable program code
compnsmg:
[ c] computer readable program code configured to
facilitate submission of a project plan with a chosen set of plan
components;
[ d] computer readable program code configured to query
a cloud portal for information on the chosen plan components;
[ e] computer readable program code configured to receive
from the cloud portal information on the chosen plan
components;
[ f] computer readable program code configured to
generate 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
[g] computer readable program code configured to
facilitate selection of a recommended plan.
REJECTIONS
Claims 14--21, 24, and 25 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) as
anticipated by Motwani (US 2007/0260502 Al, pub. Nov. 8, 2007).
Claims 22 and 23 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as obvious
over Motwani.
2
Appeal2014-002137
Application 13/192,565
ANALYSIS
Independent claims 14 and 15, and dependent claims 16--21, and 2 5
Appellants argue claims 14--21, 24, and 25 as a group (Br. 13-14).
We select claim 1 as representative. The remaining claims stand or fall with
claim 1. 37 C.F.R. § 41.37( c )(1 )(iv).
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
from the chosen plan components," as required by limitation [ fJ in claim 14
(Br. 13-14 ). 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. 4--5 (citing
Motwani i-fi-f 18, 19, 22, 24, 28, 32, and Fig. 2, items 201a---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-
d)).
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 ... 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. 13). However, 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
3
Appeal2014-002137
Application 13/192,565
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
14 under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b). We also sustain the Examiner's rejection of
claims 14--21, 24, and 25, which fall with independent claim 1.
Dependent claims 22 and 23
Appellants do not present any arguments for the separate patentability
of dependent claims 22 and 23 except to assert that they are allowable "[b ]y
virtue of proper dependence from Claim 15" (Br. 14). However, we are not
persuaded for the reasons outlined above that the Examiner erred in rejecting
independent claims 14 and 15 under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b). Therefore, we
sustain the Examiner's rejection under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) of claims 22 and
23 for the same reasons.
DECISION
The Examiner's rejections of claims 14--25 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