Ex Parte Mitchell

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Jun 20, 2013

11360005 (P.T.A.B. Jun. 20, 2013)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
__________

BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
__________

Ex parte RICHARD B. MITCHELL
__________

Appeal 2011-003666
Application 11/360,005
Technology Center 2600
___________

Before JOHN A. JEFFERY, JAMES B. ARPIN, and
TRENTON A. WARD, Administrative Patent Judges.

WARD, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL
Appellant appeals under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the final rejection of
claims 1-21. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b), and we heard the
appeal on June 11, 2013.
We affirm-in-part.
Appeal 2011-003666
Application 11/360,005

2

STATEMENT OF THE CASE
The Applied Prior Art
Sellen US 2004/0088356 A1 May 6, 2004
Laird US 2005/0085257 A1 Apr. 21, 2005
Dilbeck US 2006/0255927 A1 Nov. 16, 2006
Filed Jul. 25, 2005
Spitz US 7,145,457 B2 Dec. 5, 2006
Filed Jul. 9, 2004
Bankert US 7,180,415 B2 Feb. 20, 2007
Filed Jun. 30, 2004

The Rejections on Appeal
Claims 1-13 and 21 were rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
unpatentable over Bankert, Dilbeck, Spitz, and Laird.
Claims 14-20 were rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable
over Bankert, Dilbeck, Spitz, Laird, and Sellen.

The Invention
The claimed invention is directed to an intelligent headcount system
that provides for executing a recovery plan for implementing business
continuity capabilities, procedures, and activities ensuring that all persons
have been accounted for during a crisis-event in real time in response to an
emergency disaster declaration. Spec. 2-3. The claimed invention provides
a real time headcount system and method operable to locate, identify, and
realize a real time headcount of all persons present at a crisis-event site
during a crisis event. Id. Claim 1 is illustrative and is reproduced below,
with certain limitations emphasized:

Appeal 2011-003666
Application 11/360,005

3

1. A real time automatic headcount system comprising:
a checklist stored in a database, the checklist including a
name, a unique identifier, and a status for each person,
including employees, visitors, and contractors, expected to be
present at a site at any given moment;
a portable transmitter operable to generate an alert signal
upon the occurrence of a crisis event affecting the site;
a plurality of receivers, each associated with a single
person on the checklist, the receivers each being operable to
output an acknowledgement signal indicating that the person
associated with the receiver has been informed about the crisis
event upon receiving the alert signal;
a central processing unit coupled to the database,
transmitter, and receivers, and operable to transmit the alert
signal and to receive the acknowledgement signal, the central
processing unit being operable to update, in real time, the
status of the person on the checklist as accounted for in
response to receiving the acknowledgement signal; and
an output device displaying the checklist and allowing a
coordinator to see, in real-time, which persons on the checklist
have been accounted for.

DISCUSSION
A. Obviousness Rejection of Claims 1-12 and 21 over Bankert, Dilbeck,
Spitz, and Laird

The Examiner determined that the claimed invention, including a
checklist providing a name, a unique identifier, and a status for each person,
including employees, visitors, and contractors, expected to be present at a
site at any given moment, was taught or suggested by Bankert in
combination with Dilbeck, Spitz, and Laird. Ans. 4-6. Appellant disagrees
and argues that the combination of the cited references fails to render the
independent claims obvious. App. Br. 5-9. We address Appellant’s
arguments seriatim.
Appeal 2011-003666
Application 11/360,005

4

First, Appellant argues that Bankert does not disclose a checklist. Br.
7. Appellant’s arguments are misplaced because the Examiner does not rely
upon Bankert as teaching the claimed checklist and, in fact, concedes that
Bankert “does not expressly teach a checklist stored in a database.” Ans. 4.
Instead, the Examiner relies upon Dilbeck as teaching a checklist including a
name, a unique identifier, and a status for employees expected to be present
at a site at a given moment. Ans. 5.
Second, Appellant argues that, although Dilbeck teaches a system for
executing an emergency response plan, Dilbeck fails to disclose a checklist
including a name, a status, and unique identifier for each person expected to
be present at a site at any given moment. Contrary to Appellant’s argument,
the Examiner finds that Dilbeck discloses a checklist including a name, a
unique identifier, and a status for employees expected to be present at a
given moment. Ans. 5 (citing Dilbeck ¶¶ [0055-56]). In fact, Dilbeck
discloses a system for executing emergency response plans that provides an
“Execution Control Center” 1100 user interface that displays an “Employee
Calls” data area 119 providing “information on the status of current attempts
to contact particular employees, contacts, or services.” Dilbeck ¶ [0055].

Appeal 2011-003666
Application 11/360,005

5

Figure 11 from Dilbeck is reproduced below:

Dilbeck Figure 11 depicts an “Execution Control Center” 1100.

Dilbeck’s Figure 11, shown above, illustrates that its system manages a
checklist that provides real time updates of the status of emergency calls
made to certain employees. Dilbeck ¶ [0055]. Dilbeck discloses that
“[e]mployees listed in the Outstanding area 1125 are currently in the process
of being contacted and have not responded with a confirmation,” and
“[e]mployees listed in the Confirmed area have been contacted and have
responded with a confirmation code.” Id. Accordingly, we are not
persuaded by Appellant’s argument that Dilbeck fails to disclose a checklist
providing the status of employees at a given moment. Appellant also argues
that Dilbeck’s system does not account for each person expected to be
present at a site at any given moment. Once again, Appellant’s arguments
Appeal 2011-003666
Application 11/360,005

6

are misplaced because the Examiner does not rely upon Dilbeck for this
teaching, but rather cites to both Spitz and Laird as keeping track of persons,
such as visitors and contractors, expected to be present at a site at a given
moment. Ans. 5-6.
Third, Appellant argues that, although Spitz and Laird mention
tracking visitors and contractors, the tracking is not integrated into a
displayed checklist of all employees, visitors, and contractors. Br. 7.
Specifically, Appellant argues that both Spitz and Laird fail to teach a
checklist, displayed and updated in real time that includes each person
expected to be present at a site at a given moment. Br. 9. Contrary to
Appellant’s argument, the Examiner does not rely upon Spitz and Laird for
teachings with respect to a checklist, but rather combines the teachings of
Spitz and Laird regarding tracking all employees expected to be present at a
site, including visitors and contractors, with the real time checklist disclosed
in Dilbeck. Ans. 5-6.
Fourth, Appellant argues that the four references relied upon by the
Examiner teach very different systems and that the Examiner has not
articulated a rationale for combining the references. We are not persuaded
by Appellant’s arguments regarding alleged non-analogous subject matter
because Bankert, Dilbeck, and Laird are directed to emergency messaging
systems, the claimed subject matter, and because Spitz is directed to a
related field of a security system for tracking individuals at a site.
Furthermore, the Examiner articulates a sufficient rationale for the
combination of the references, namely, “to convey security messages and
warnings to account for and keep track of employees, visitors, and
contractors.” Ans. 6.
Appeal 2011-003666
Application 11/360,005

7

Accordingly, we are not persuaded by Appellant’s arguments
regarding the cited prior art. Therefore, we sustain the Examiner’s rejection
of claims 1-12 and 21 as obvious over Dilbeck, Bankert, Spitz and Laird.

B. Obviousness Rejection of Claim 13 over Dilbeck, Bankert, Spitz, and
Laird

Although Appellant nominally argues claim 13 separately, Appellant
nonetheless relies on the same arguments presented for claims 1-12 and 21,
namely that the cited references do not disclose or suggest the claimed
“checklist” that is displayed and updated in real time. Br. 10. We find the
arguments for claim 13 unpersuasive for the reasons indicated previously for
claims 1-12 and 21. We, therefore, sustain the Examiner's rejection of claim
13.

C. Obviousness Rejections of Claims 14-20 Over Bankert, Dilbeck,
Spitz, Laird, and Sellen

Appellant separately argues that the rejection of claims 14-20 is
improper. Br. 10-12. The Examiner determined that Bankert in
combination with Dilbeck, Spitz, and Laird suggested all of the limitations
of independent claim 14, except for the claim limitations regarding sending a
message via the network to each person that has been accounted for on the
checklist, wherein the message solicits information about at least one
individual who has not been accounted for on the checklist. Ans. 12. The
Examiner relies upon the combination of Sellen with the previously cited
references in concluding that claim 14 is obvious. Id. More particularly, the
Examiner relies upon Sellen as teaching soliciting information about at least
Appeal 2011-003666
Application 11/360,005

8

one individual who has not been accounted for and receiving information
from at least one person regarding the at least one individual. Ans. 13.
Appellant argues that the disclosure cited from Sellen merely teaches
that a person who is physically present at a worker’s workspace may ask
people in the surrounding vicinity about the whereabouts of the worker. Br.
11. In fact, the single paragraph from Sellen cited by the Examiner states
that “[i]t may be possible for the visitor to ask the remote worker’s
colleagues if they know the worker’s whereabouts.” Sellen ¶ [0005]. The
context for the teaching in Sellen is when “someone visits a worker’s
workspace and discovers that the person they sought to visit is not there.”
Sellen ¶ [0003]. Sellen, however, does not teach “sending a message via the
network to each person that has been accounted for on the checklist” or
“receiving a message from at least one person who has been accounted for
on the checklist,” as recited in claim 14. Although the Examiner combines
the disclosure in Sellen with the four previously cited references, the
combination of the cited prior art does not reasonably teach or suggest
sending a separate message to accounted for individuals and receiving
another message from those individuals in response. See Ans. 11-13. Based
on the record before us, we find error in the Examiner’s obviousness
rejection of independent claim 14. Accordingly, we do not sustain the
rejection of independent claim 14, and claims 15-20 dependent therefrom.

Appeal 2011-003666
Application 11/360,005

9

ORDER
The Examiner’s decision rejecting claims 1-13 and 21 is affirmed.
The Examiner’s decision rejecting claims 14-20 is reversed.

AFFIRMED-IN-PART

tkl