Ex Parte HO

Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences

Nov 18, 2003

09053880 (B.P.A.I. Nov. 18, 2003)

The opinion in support of the decision being entered today was not written for publication and is not binding precedent of the Board.
Paper No. 20
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
____________
BEFORE THE BOARD OF PATENT APPEALS
AND INTERFERENCES
____________
Ex parte WILLIAM P.C. HO
____________
Appeal No. 2002-0086
Application No. 09/053,880
____________
ON BRIEF
____________
Before JERRY SMITH, FLEMING, and BARRY, Administrative Patent Judges.
BARRY, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
A patent examiner rejected claims 1-14. The appellants appeal therefrom under
35 U.S.C. § 134(a). We reverse.
BACKGROUND
The invention at issue on appeal concerns "transportation scheduling."
"Transportation scheduling is the process of planning how to move items from one
location to another location using a fleet of carriers . . . under a set of restrictive
constraints." (Spec. at 1.) An example of transportation scheduling is scheduling
wheelchair-bound customers who request round trip transportation from home to
Appeal No. 2002-0086 Page 2
Application No. 09/053,880
medical appointments, shopping, and community centers. A fleet of vehicles must
provide service under constraints such as honoring a requested pickup time, dropping
the customer off no more than sixty minutes before his appointment, and planning for
slower travel speed during rush hours. (Id.)
Transportation scheduling takes a collection of trip requests as its "subgoals"
and a fleet of vehicles as its resources. The scheduling constructs a "trip manifest" for
each vehicle. The trip manifest is an ordered sequence of stop events. Each event has
an associated location (either pickup or dropoff) and an assigned time. (Id.)
Accordingly, the appellant's invention schedules trips using vehicles, each
vehicle having a trip manifest. A matrix that delimits which of the vehicles is usable with
which of the trips is first generated. Next, a best trip of the trips to be scheduled is
determined. A best vehicle from the set of vehicles for accommodating the best trip is
then resolved. A best insertion pair comprising the best vehicle for the best trip is
determined. An appropriate trip manifest is updated to include the best insertion pair.
Finally, the matrix is updated to reflect the scheduling of the best trip to the best vehicle.
The preceding steps are repeated until all the trips have been scheduled. (Id., abs.)
Appeal No. 2002-0086 Page 3
Application No. 09/053,880
A further understanding of the invention can be achieved by reading the following
claim.
1. An improved transportation scheduling method of scheduling a
plurality of trips T1-Tn, using a plurality of vehicles V1-Vn, each of said
plurality of vehicles having a trip manifest, said method comprising:
(a) generating a usability matrix that determines which of said
plurality of vehicles V1-Vn, is useable with each of said plurality of trips T1-
Tn, said usability matrix having along one axis said plurality of trips T1-Tn;
(b) determining a best trip of said plurality of trips T1-Tn to be
scheduled next;
(c) determining a best vehicle from said plurality of vehicles V1-Vn
for accommodating said best trip;
(d) determining a best insertion pair into said trip manifest of said
best vehicle for said best trip and updating said trip manifest to include
said best insertion pair;
(e) updating said useability matrix to reflect the scheduling of said
best trip on said best vehicle and removing said best trip from said
plurality of trips T1-Tn;
(f) repeating steps (a)-(e) until all of the trips in said plurality of trips
T1-Tn have been scheduled; and
(g) having said plurality of vehicles V1-Vn, execute their respective
said trip manifests.
Claims 1, 2, 4, 6, 7, 9, 10, 12, and 13 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 102(e) as
anticipated by U.S. Patent No. 5,832,453 ("O'Brien"). Claims 3, 5, 8, 11, and 14 stand
rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as obvious over O'Brien.
Appeal No. 2002-0086 Page 4
Application No. 09/053,880
OPINION
Our opinion addresses the rejections in the following order:
• anticipation rejection of claims 1, 2, 4, 6, 7, 9, 10, 12, and 13
• obviousness rejection of claims 3, 5, 8, 11, and 14.
Anticipation Rejection of Claims 1, 2, 4, 6, 7, 9, 10, 12, and 13
Rather than reiterate the positions of the examiner or the appellant in toto, we
address a point of contention therebetween. The examiner asserts, "O'Brien clearly
states that trips are re-allocated until an optimum travel scheme is determined (See
Col. 11, lines 3-9)." (Examiner's Answer at 6.) The appellant argues, "[i]n the O'Brien
patent, there is absolutely no teaching that the vehicle may have its routing changed.
Thus, the O'Brien patent cannot teach the step of 'updating said trip manifest'." (Appeal
Br. at 7.)
"Analysis begins with a key legal question -- what is the invention claimed?"
Panduit Corp. v. Dennison Mfg. Co., 810 F.2d 1561, 1567, 1 USPQ2d 1593, 1597 (Fed.
Cir. 1987). "Claims are not interpreted in a vacuum, but are part of and are read in light
of the specification." Slimfold Mfg. Co. v. Kinkead Indus., Inc., 810 F.2d 1113, 1116, 1
USPQ2d 1563, 1566 (Fed. Cir. 1987) (citing Hybritech Inc. v. Monoclonal Anti-bodies,
Inc., 802 F.2d 1367, 1385, 231 USPQ 81, 94-95 (Fed. Cir. 1986); In re Mattison, 509
F.2d 563, 565, 184 USPQ 484, 486 (CCPA 1975)).
Appeal No. 2002-0086 Page 5
Application No. 09/053,880
Here, claim 1 specifies in pertinent part the following limitations: "[a]n improved
transportation scheduling method for scheduling a plurality of trips T1-Tn, using a
plurality of vehicles V1-Vn, each of said plurality of vehicles having a trip manifest, said
method comprising . . . determining a best insertion pair into said trip manifest of said
best vehicle for said best trip and updating said trip manifest to include said best
insertion pair. . . ." The appellant's specification defines the "trip manifest" as follows.
"A manifest is an ordered sequence of stop events. Each event has an associated
location (either pickup or dropoff) and an assigned time." (Spec. at 1.) Reading "trip
manifest" in light of the specification, the limitations require dynamically updating a
vehicle's trip manifest, i.e., its schedule of pickups or dropoffs, in response to the
scheduling of an individual trip.
"Having construed the claim limitations at issue, we now compare the claims to
the prior art to determine if the prior art anticipates those claims." In re Cruciferous
Sprout Litig., 301 F.3d 1343, 1349, 64 USPQ2d 1202, 1206 (Fed. Cir. 2002). "A claim
is anticipated only if each and every element as set forth in the claim is found, either
expressly or inherently described, in a single prior art reference." Verdegaal Bros., Inc.
v. Union Oil Co., 814 F.2d 628, 631, 2 USPQ2d 1051, 1053 (Fed. Cir. 1987) (citing
Structural Rubber Prods. Co. v. Park Rubber Co., 749 F.2d 707, 715, 223 USPQ 1264,
1270 (Fed. Cir. 1984); Connell v. Sears, Roebuck & Co., 722 F.2d 1542, 1548, 220
Appeal No. 2002-0086 Page 6
Application No. 09/053,880
USPQ 193, 198 (Fed. Cir. 1983); Kalman v. Kimberly-Clark Corp., 713 F.2d760, 771,
218 USPQ 781, 789 (Fed. Cir. 1983)). "[A]bsence from the reference of any claimed
element negates anticipation." Kloster Speedsteel AB v. Crucible, Inc., 793 F.2d 1565,
1571, 230 USPQ 81, 84 (Fed. Cir. 1986).
Here, "[t]he examiner believes that . . . [the claimed] 'vehicles' . . . are equivalent
to [O'Brien's] 'travel carriers'. . . ." (Examiner's Answer at 6.) The travel carriers include
United Airlines, American Airlines, and Delta Airlines. O'Brien, col. 4, ll. 31-47. We
agree with the appellant that "in the O'Brien patent, predetermined travel links
presumes a predetermined trip manifest for each of the vehicles. In the case of
O'Brien, the airlines that serve as the vehicles have pre-scheduled flights that connect
predetermined points at predetermined times." (Reply Br. at 2.) The reference implies
the use of such trip manifests by referring to "the scheduled departure and arrival time
for each travel service, . . . the number of travel services offered between a particular
travel origin and a particular travel destination, whether a particular travel service
requires a connection or stop-over, and if so, the connection or stop-over time. . . ."
Col. 3, ll. 48-55.
We are unpersuaded, however, that the airlines dynamically update their trip
manifests in response to the scheduling of an individual trip. To the contrary, we agree
Appeal No. 2002-0086 Page 7
Application No. 09/053,880
with the appellants that "[j]ust like applicant cannot call United Airlines and purchase a
ticket from an arbitrary point A to an arbitrary point B at a certain time, the O'Brien
invention cannot and does not allow a user (the passenger) to dictate the time and
destination of an airplane. In other words, the trip manifest for O'Brien is fixed by the
transportation provider. . . ." (Reply Br. at 2.)
The absence from the reference of dynamically updating a vehicle's tip manifest
in response to the scheduling of an individual trip negates anticipation. Therefore, we
reverse the anticipation rejection of claim 1, and of claims 2, 4, 6, 7, 9, 10, 12, and 13,
which depend therefrom.
Obviousness Rejection of Claims 3, 5, 8, 11, and 14
"In rejecting claims under 35 U.S.C. Section 103, the examiner bears the initial
burden of presenting a prima facie case of obviousness." In re Rijckaert, 9 F.3d 1531,
1532, 28 USPQ2d 1955, 1956 (Fed. Cir. 1993) (citing In re Oetiker, 977 F.2d 1443,
1445, 24 USPQ2d 1443, 1444 (Fed. Cir. 1992)). "'A prima facie case of obviousness is
established when the teachings from the prior art itself would . . . have suggested the
claimed subject matter to a person of ordinary skill in the art.'" In re Bell, 991 F.2d 781,
783, 26 USPQ2d 1529, 1531 (Fed. Cir. 1993) (quoting In re Rinehart, 531 F.2d 1048,
1051, 189 USPQ 143, 147 (CCPA 1976)).
Appeal No. 2002-0086 Page 8
Application No. 09/053,880
Here, because O'Brien cannot and does not allow a passenger to dictate the
time and destination of an airplane, we are unpersuaded that teachings from the prior
art itself would have suggested dynamically updating trip manifests in response to the
scheduling of an individual trip. Therefore, we reverse the obviousness rejection of
claims 3, 5, 8, 11, and 14.
CONCLUSION
In summary, the rejection of claims 1, 2, 4, 6, 7, 9, 10, 12, and 13 under § 102(e)
is reversed. The rejection of claims 3, 5, 8, 11, and 14 under § 103(a) is also reversed.
Appeal No. 2002-0086 Page 9
Application No. 09/053,880
REVERSED
JERRY SMITH )
Administrative Patent Judge )
)
)
)
) BOARD OF PATENT
MICHAEL R. FLEMING ) APPEALS
Administrative Patent Judge ) AND
) INTERFERENCES
)
)
)
LANCE LEONARD BARRY )
Administrative Patent Judge )
Appeal No. 2002-0086 Page 10
Application No. 09/053,880
PERKINS COIE, LLP
PATENT - SEA
P. O. BOX 1247
SEATTLE, WA 98111-1247