Ex Parte McCreaDownload PDFPatent Trial and Appeal BoardAug 10, 201611602235 (P.T.A.B. Aug. 10, 2016) Copy Citation UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE 11/602,235 11/21/2006 7590 08/10/2016 MEREK, BLACKMON & VOORHEES, LLC 673 South Washington Street Alexandria, VA 22314 FIRST NAMED INVENTOR Frank McCrea 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. F2PR0002.l l 1098 EXAMINER BROCKINGTON III, WILLIAMS ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 3623 MAILDATE DELIVERY MODE 08/10/2016 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 FRANK MCCREA Appeal2014-004446 1 Application 11/602,2352 Technology Center 3600 Before NINA L. MEDLOCK, PHILIP J. HOFFMANN, and CYNTHIA L. MURPHY, Administrative Patent Judges. MEDLOCK, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL STATEMENT OF THE CASE Appellant appeals under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Examiner's final rejection of claims 14--17, 20, 33-38, 40-43, and 51. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). We REVERSE. 1 Our decision references Appellant's Appeal Brief ("App. Br.," filed September 25, 2013) and Reply Brief ("Reply Br.," filed February 24, 2014), and the Examiner's Answer ("Ans.," mailed December 23, 2013), Advisory Action ("Adv. Act.," mailed July 25, 2013), and Final Office Action ("Final Act.," mailed April 22, 2013). 2 Appellant identifies Keal, Inc. as the real party in interest. App. Br. 2. Appeal2014-004446 Application 11/602,235 CLAIMED INVENTION Appellant's claimed invention "relates to systems and methods of managing a work relationship" and, more particularly, "to systems and methods for managing work relationships between one or more clients and one or more service providers (e.g., contractors, vendors, sub-vendors, etc.)" (Spec. 2). Claim 40, reproduced below, is illustrative of the subject matter on appeal: 40. An apparatus for managing time related work activities of at least one worker for at least one client, said apparatus comprising: (a) a computer system, said computer system having at least one of the following: (i) requisition tracking module for tracking and managing procurement of labor resources; (ii) invoice tracking module for preparing and tracking invoices; (iii) document tracking module for tracking documents relating to work activities of at least one worker for at least one client; and (iv) time tracking module for tracking information related to time worked by at least one worker for at least one client; and, (b) said computer system further including a logo management component for storing a plurality of logos, said plurality of logos including a first logo identifying a first vendor and a second logo identifying a second vendor, said logo management component being configured to determine whether to display said first logo or said second logo when a system user accesses a user interface providing information related to a first contractor where said first contractor is represented by said first vendor and said second vendor such that the first logo is displayed when a system user accesses a user interface providing information related to the first contractor working under the first vendor and the second logo is displayed when a system user accesses a user interface providing information related to the first contractor working under the second vendor. 2 Appeal2014-004446 Application 11/602,235 REJECTIONS3 Claims 14--17, 20, 33, 34, and 38 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Arroyo (US 2003/0033167 Al, pub. Feb. 13, 2003), Jorgensen (US 2002/0103755 Al, pub. Aug. 1, 2002), and Szlam (US 2004/0111310 Al, pub. June 10, 2004). Claims 35-37 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Arroyo, Jorgensen, Szlam, and Meshkin (US 2004/0122735 Al, pub. June 24, 2004). Claims 40 and 41 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Arroyo and Jorgensen. Claims 42, 43, and 51 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Arroyo, Jorgensen, and Woodings (US 2004/0267595 Al, pub. Dec. 30, 2004). ANALYSIS Independent Claim 40 and Dependent Claim 41 We are persuaded by Appellant's argument that the Examiner erred in rejecting claim 40 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) because neither Arroyo nor Jorgensen, individually or in combination, discloses or suggests a logo management component for storing a plurality of logos, ... including a first logo identifying a first vendor and a second logo identifying a second vendor, said logo management component being configured to determine whether to display said first logo or said second logo when a system user accesses a user interface providing information related to a first contractor where said first contractor is represented by said first vendor and said second vendor such that the first logo is displayed when a 3 The rejection of claim 51 under 35 U.S.C. § 112, second paragraph, has been withdrawn. Adv. Act. 1. 3 Appeal2014-004446 Application 11/602,235 system user accesses a user interface providing information related to the first contractor working under the first vendor and the second logo is displayed when a system user accesses a user interface providing information related to the first contractor working under the second vendor[,] as recited in claim 40 (App. Br. 11-15). The Examiner relies on paragraphs 51 and 54 of Arroyo and paragraphs 31 and 3 3 of Jorgensen, in combination, as disclosing the argued limitation (Final Act. 16-1 7). But we find nothing in the cited paragraphs that discloses or suggests a logo management component, as called for in claim 40. Arroyo is directed to a system and method for paperless business workflow review and management (Arroyo, Abstract), and discloses that in an exemplary embodiment, critical business processes and related business documents, e.g., timesheets, expense reports, and invoices, for full and part- time employees, consultants, and subcontractors, are created, tracked, and stored electronically in a central repository (id. i-fi-f 19, 20). Arroyo discloses, in paragraphs 51 and 54, cited by the Examiner, that business rules can be established to limit access to the data depending on a user's role, and further that each user's view of the stored data can be customized to his/her organization. Thus, two managers in two different companies, e.g., Company A and Company B, a sub-contractor to Company A, viewing the same data, will each see the data in the format used by his/her own company, including document layouts, logos, fonts, and color schemes. Jorgensen is directed to a method for presenting and processing bills and invoices from a supplier, through an intermediary-billed party, e.g., a contractor, to an end-billed party, e.g., a customer (Jorgensen i-f 16), and discloses in paragraphs 31 and 33, cited by the Examiner, that in a preferred embodiment, the customer receives notification via electronic mail 4 Appeal2014-004446 Application 11/602,235 (including a link to the supplier's website) that a bill has been presented. Jorgensen discloses that by allowing an intermediary-billed party, e.g., a contractor, who purchases goods from a billing party, e.g., a supplier, to pass along those charges to an end-billed party, the repetitive generation of invoices is avoided. The contractor, thus, avoids the time and expense of separately paying the supplier's invoice and then creating and sending a corresponding invoice to the customer; the supplier also may benefit by directing the customer to the supplier's website for payment of the bill because the customer may then be exposed to advertising the supplier wishes the customer to view. In rejecting claim 40 under§ 103(a), the Examiner cites Arroyo as disclosing a logo management component configured to determine whether to display a first logo or a second logo when a system user accesses a user interface (Final Act. 16 (citing Arroyo i-fi-151, 54)). The Examiner acknowledges that Arroyo does not expressly disclose storing logos or utilizing vendor/contractor relationships, but the Examiner maintains that these features are "implicitly disclosed" by the reference (id. at 16-17; see also Ans. 5). The Examiner further interprets paragraphs 31 and 33 of Jorgensen as disclosing "a logo displayed when a system user accesses a user interface providing information related to a contractor working under a vendor" (id.). And the Examiner reasons that because both Arroyo and Jorgensen disclose systems that utilize business management, a person of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that applying the known technique of Jorgensen to the teachings of Arroyo would have yielded predictable results and resulted in an improved system (id.). 5 Appeal2014-004446 Application 11/602,235 The Examiner concludes that it would have been obvious to apply the teachings of Jorgensen (i.e., allowing an intermediary-billed party to pass along charges to an end-billed party by directing the end-billed party to the billing party's website for payment) to the teachings of Arroyo (i.e., customizing each user's view of stored data in a central repository to the user's organization). Yet we fail to see how or why, and the Examiner does not adequately explain how or why, this combination discloses or suggests a "logo management component," as called for in claim 40, which is configured to determine whether to display said first logo or said second logo when a system user accesses a user interface ... such that the first logo is displayed when a system user accesses a user interface providing information related to the first contractor working under the first vendor and the second logo is displayed when a system user accesses a user interface providing information related to the first contractor working under the second vendor, when none of the cited portions of Arroyo and Jorgensen addresses the issue of displaying the logo of the appropriate vendor at the appropriate time where a single contractor is representing two different vendors, as called for in claim 40. In view of the foregoing, we do not sustain the Examiner's rejection of claim 40 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a). For the same reasons, we also do not sustain the Examiner's rejection of dependent claim 41. Cf In re Fritch, 972 F.2d 1260, 1266 (Fed. Cir. 1992) ("dependent claims are nonobvious if the independent claims from which they depend are nonobvious"). Dependent Claim 42 Claim 42 depends from independent claim 40. The Examiner's rejection of claim 42 based on Woodings, in combination with Arroyo and 6 Appeal2014-004446 Application 11/602,235 Jorgensen, does not cure the deficiency in the Examiner's rejection of claim 40. Therefore, we do not sustain the Examiner's rejection of claim 42 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) for the same reasons set forth above with respect to claim 40. Independent Claim 43 and Dependent Claim 51 Claim 43 is directed to an apparatus for managing time related work activities of at least one worker for at least one client, and recites that the apparatus comprises, inter alia, a computer system ... including a logo management component for storing a plurality of logos, said plurality of logos including a first logo associated with a first vendor and a second logo associated with a system administrator, the first logo being different from the second logo, said logo management component being configured to automatically and simultaneously display the first logo and the second logo on a screenshot providing information relating to time worked for a first client when the screenshot is accessed by the first client, the first client is different from the first vendor and the system administrator. In rejecting claim 43 under§ 103(a), the Examiner cites paragraphs 54 and 55 of Arroyo as disclosing a system for managing workflow that includes accessing the system remotely and displaying relevant logos; paragraphs 16, 31, and 33 of Jorgensen as disclosing a system for managing marketing and logos for vendors and contractors; and Figure 61 of W oodings as disclosing simultaneous display of a vendor logo and a system administrator logo (Final Act. 19-21 ). And the Examiner concludes that "applying simultaneous logo display to Arroyo and Jorgensen would have been recognized by those of ordinary skill in the art as resulting in an improved system that would allow more effective and personalized billing" (id. at 22). 7 Appeal2014-004446 Application 11/602,235 Responding to Appellant's arguments in the Answer, the Examiner asserts, "the combination of references teaches the disputed limitations [of claim 43] because the Arroyo reference discloses a plurality of supply chain logos and the W oodings reference discloses the simultaneous display of logos, wherein one of the logos is a system administrator logo" (Ans. 9-10). Yet, we fail to see how, and the Examiner does not adequately explain how, Figure 61 of Woodings, which has nothing to do with logo management, in combination with Arroyo (alone or in combination with Jorgensen), somehow discloses or suggests "automatically and simultaneously display the first logo and the second logo . . . when the screenshot is accessed by the first client ... [which] is different from the first vendor and the system administrator" when paragraphs 54 and 55 of Arroyo, on which the Examiner relies, disclose that only one logo is displayed, and that logo is the logo of the organization of the individual viewing the documents and data, i.e., the first client, and not that of a vendor or a system administrator. In view of the foregoing, we do not sustain the Examiner's rejection of claim 43 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a). For the same reasons, we also do not sustain the Examiner's rejection of dependent claim 51. Independent Claims 14, 20 and 38 and Dependent Claims 15-17, 33, 34, and 38 Independent claim 14 is directed to an apparatus for managing time related work activities of at least one worker for at least one client, and similar to independent claim 40, calls for a "logo management component" configured to display a first logo or a second logo on a user interface depending on whether a contractor is representing a first vendor or a second 8 Appeal2014-004446 Application 11/602,235 vendor. Independent claims 20 and 38 also include substantially similar language. The Examiner's rejection of independent claims 14, 20, and 38 is based on the same findings and rationale with respect to Arroyo and Jorgensen applied with respect to claim 40. We are persuaded, for the reasons set forth above, that the Examiner erred in rejecting claim 40 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a). And we are persuaded that the Examiner also erred in rejecting claims 14, 20, and 38 for the same reasons. Therefore, we do not sustain the Examiner's rejection under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) of independent claims 14, 20, and 38, and claims 15-17, 33, 34, and 38, which depend therefrom, for the same reasons set forth above with respect to claim 40. Dependent Claims 35-37 Each of claims 35-37 depends, directly or indirectly, from claim 14. The Examiner's rejection of claims 35-37 based on Meshkin, in combination with Arroyo, Jorgensen, and Szlam, does not cure the deficiency in the Examiner's rejection of claim 14. Therefore, we do not sustain the Examiner's rejection of claim 35-37 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) for the same reasons set forth above with respect to claim 14. DECISION The Examiner's rejections of claims 14--17, 20, 33-38, 40-43, and 51 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) are reversed. REVERSED 9 Copy with citationCopy as parenthetical citation