Ex Parte Mueller et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Aug 18, 2015

11847254 (P.T.A.B. Aug. 18, 2015)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
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
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE FIRST NAMED INVENTOR ATTORNEY DOCKET NO. CONFIRMATION NO.
11/847,254 08/29/2007 Juergen Mueller 247-077US 1823
131475 7590 08/19/2015
Dilworth IP - SAP
2 Corporate Drive, Suite 206
Trumbull, CT 06611
EXAMINER
MONFELDT, SARAH M
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
3692
MAIL DATE DELIVERY MODE
08/19/2015 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 JUERGEN MUELLER, CHRISTIAN REINHARDT,
MARKUS PUCHTA, ULRIKE JANHOEFER, and
WASSILLI SABELFELD
____________

Appeal 2012-012118
Application 11/847,254
Technology Center 3600
____________

Before ANTON W. FETTING, BIBHU R. MOHANTY, and
CYNTHIA L. MURPHY, Administrative Patent Judges.

MOHANTY, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL

STATEMENT OF THE CASE

The Appellants seek our review under 35 U.S.C. § 134 of the final
rejection of claims 1, 2, and 4–19 which are all the claims pending in the
application. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).

SUMMARY OF THE DECISION
We REVERSE.

Appeal 2012-012118
Application 11/847,254

2
THE INVENTION
The Appellants’ claimed invention is directed to collecting data for
improving the accuracy of task duration estimates and assessing benefits
(Spec., para. 1). Claim 1, reproduced below with numbering in brackets
added, is representative of the subject matter on appeal.

1. A method comprising:
[1] preparing a preliminary estimate of a task duration based on
a subset of a plurality of conditions;
[2] preparing an adjusted estimate of the task duration based on
the plurality of conditions;
[3] measuring an actual duration of the task;
[4] storing, by a computer, the preliminary estimate, the
adjusted estimate and the actual duration in a database: and
[5] preparing, by the computer, a plurality of adjusted
estimates, each adjusted estimate corresponding to one of a plurality
of resources that could perform the task; and
[6] assigning the task to one of the plurality of resources based
on the plurality of adjusted estimates.

THE REJECTIONS
The following rejections are before us for review:
1. Claims 8, 18, and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 112, first
paragraph, as failing to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art
that the inventors, at the time the application was filed, had possession of the
claimed invention.
2. Claims 8, 18 and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 112, second
paragraph.
3. Claims 1, 2, 4, and 5 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
unpatentable over Caggese (US 6,944,862 B2; iss. Sept.13, 2005) and Janert
(US 2005/0278062 Al; iss. Dec. 15, 2005).
Appeal 2012-012118
Application 11/847,254

3
4. Claims 6 and 7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
unpatentable over Caggese, Janert, and Musafia (US 2002/0038235 Al; iss.
Mar. 28, 2002).
5. Claims 8–11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
unpatentable over Caggese, and Pollalis (US 5,016,170; iss. May 14, 1991).
6. Claims 12–15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
unpatentable over Janert and Caggese.
7. Claims 16–19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
unpatentable over Pollalis and Caggese.

FINDINGS OF FACT
We have determined that the findings of fact in the Analysis section
below are supported at least by a preponderance of the evidence1.

ANALYSIS
Rejections under 35 U.S.C. § 112, first paragraph
The Examiner has determined that the rejection of claim 8 is improper
because the term “physical task” is not supported in the Specification (Ans.
8, 21–23). The Examiner has also rejected claim 18 for the phrase “where
the best resource is selected as being most favorable in light of a defined
result” and claim 19 for the phrase “where the best resource is selected as
being a most favorable result based on predefined criteria” as both being not
supported by the Specification (Ans. 8, 24).

1 See Ethicon, Inc. v. Quigg, 849 F.2d 1422, 1427 (Fed. Cir. 1988)
(explaining the general evidentiary standard for proceedings before the
Patent Office).
Appeal 2012-012118
Application 11/847,254

4
In contrast, the Appellants have determined that these rejections are
improper (Appeal Br. 11–13, Reply Br. 4–6).
We agree with the Appellants. The factual inquiry for determining
whether a specification provides sufficient written description for the
claimed invention is whether the specification conveys with reasonable
clarity to those skilled in the art that, as of the filing date sought, applicant
was in possession of the invention as now claimed. Vas-Cath, Inc. v.
Mahurkar, 935 F.2d 1555, 1563–64 (Fed. Cir. 1991).
Turning first to claim 1, in the Specification at paragraphs 12–14,
there is a description of warehouse stocking, workers without equipment
performing tasks, and moving items from a stock to a work location. One of
ordinary skill in the art would understand that claim term “physical task” is
provided with sufficient written description in the Specification.
Turning next to claims 18 and 19, paragraph 23 describes how a best
resource can be selected based on factors such as speed, wasted movement,
or closest time estimate. One of ordinary skill in the art would understand
that claim terms “where the best resource is selected as being most favorable
in light of a defined result” and “where the best resource is selected as being
a most favorable result based on predefined criteria” is provided with
sufficient written description in the Specification.
For these reasons these rejections of claims 8, 18, and 19 are not
sustained.

Appeal 2012-012118
Application 11/847,254

5
Rejections under 35 U.S.C. § 112, second paragraph
The Examiner has determined that the rejection of claim 8 is improper
because the term “task” lacks antecedent basis (Ans. 5, 25). The Examiner
has also rejected claims 18 and 19 for the phrases “best” and “most
favorable” in each claim respectively as being relative terms (Ans. 5, 6, 26).
In contrast, the Appellants have determined that these rejections are
improper (Appeal Br. 13–14, Reply Br. 6–7).
We agree with the Appellants. Here, with regard to claim 8, one of
ordinary skill would understand what the phrase “task” referred to the prior
recited “physical task” in the claim and the claim is not indefinite. One of
ordinary skill in the art would also understand that in claims 18 and 19 what
the phrases “best” and “most favorable” in each claim respectively referred
to in light of the Specification.
For these reasons these rejections of claims 8, 18, and 19 are not
sustained.

Rejections under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a)
Claims 1, 2, and 4-7
The Examiner has determined that the rejection of claim 1 is improper
because the cited prior art fails to disclose elements of claim limitation [6],
and also that the cited combination of references would not have been
obvious and uses hindsight (App. Br. 17–18, Reply Br. 9–10).
In contrast, the Examiner has determined that the cited claim
limitation is shown by Janert at paras. 17, 19, 20, 48, and 60 and the
combination of references is proper (Ans. 7, 26–35).

Appeal 2012-012118
Application 11/847,254

6
We agree with the Appellants. Claim limitation [6] requires:
[6] assigning the task to one of the plurality of resources based on the
plurality of adjusted estimates.

Janert at the citations above does disclose for instance tracking movement
time maps for a worker and rating workers on how efficiently they move
through the warehouse. However, these citations fail to specifically disclose
any “assigning [of] the task to one of the plurality of resources based on the
plurality of adjusted estimates” as claimed. While Jannert at para. 20 does
disclose using time maps for distributing picks this fails to disclose any
assignment of the task to one of the workers based on a plurality of adjusted
estimates as claimed. As the cited claim limitation has not been shown, the
rejection of record is not sustained. For this reason the rejection of claim 1
and its dependent claims is not sustained.

Claims 8–11
The Appellants argue that the rejection of claim 8 is improper because
the prior art fails to disclose the claim limitation for “refining the
preliminary estimate based on a condition that was indefinite when the
preliminary estimate was prepared, and became definite before the
preliminary estimate was refined” (Br. 21, Reply Br. 12). In contrast, the
Examiner has determined that the cited claim limitation is shown by
Caggese at col. 2:51–3:31 and col. 4:28–52 (Ans. 12, 46–48).
We agree with the Appellants. Caggese at col. 2:51–3:31 and col.
4:28–52 does not disclose the cited claim limitation. For instance, Caggese
at col. 2:51–3:31 discloses subtracting the actual start from the actual end
time and feeding this into the and estimation module (EST) and at col. 4:28–
Appeal 2012-012118
Application 11/847,254

7
52 discloses applying an adjustment factor AF to class assigned to the new
instance of the job. These citations fail to disclose “refining the preliminary
estimate based on a condition that was indefinite when the preliminary
estimate was prepared, and became definite before the preliminary estimate
was refined”. Caggese at col. 4:28–33 states that the classifier assigns the
job “[f]or each job to be planned” and as the job is “planned” it is not
“definite” as claimed. As the cited claim limitation has not been shown, the
rejection of record is not sustained. Regardless, the cited combination lacks
articulated reasoning with rational underpinnings without impermissible
hindsight and a prima facie case has not been established. For this reason the
rejection of claim 8 and its dependent claims is not sustained.

Claims 12–15
The Appellants argue that the rejection of claim 12 is improper
because the prior art fails to disclose the claim limitation for the adjusted
time estimate to include “a unique characteristic of the selected resource and
a situational characteristic of the selected resource” (Br. 24). In contrast, the
Examiner has determined that the cited claim limitation is shown by
Caggese at col. 2:51–3:31, col. 4:28–52, col. 5:46–6:10, and the Abstract
(Ans. 16, 61–64).
We agree with the Appellants. Caggese at col. 2:51–3:31, col. 4:28–
52, col. 5:46–6:10, and the Abstract does not disclose the cited claim
limitation. Here the cited claim limitation requires both of “a unique
characteristic of the selected resource” and “a situational characteristic of
the selected resource”. While Caggese at col. 5:46–6:10 does disclose a
“situational characteristic” in the day of the week the job takes place, no
Appeal 2012-012118
Application 11/847,254

8
separate “unique characteristic of the selected resource” has been disclosed.
Regardless, the cited combination lacks articulated reasoning with rational
underpinnings without impermissible hindsight and a prima facie case has
not been established. For this reason the rejection of claim 12 and its
dependent claims is not sustained.

Claims 16–19
The Appellants argue that the rejection of claim 16 is improper
because the prior art fails to disclose the claim limitation for the adjusted
time estimate to include “task estimation logic [that] is to produce an
adjusted estimate based on complete information when the task is to be
executed” (Br. 25–26). In contrast, the Examiner has determined that the
cited claim limitation is shown by Caggese at col. 2:51–3:31, col. 4:28–52,
col. 5:46–6:10, and the Abstract (Ans. 19. 71–74).
We agree with the Appellants. Caggese at col. 2:51–3:31, col. 4:28–
52, col. 5:46–6:10, and the Abstract does not disclose the cited claim
limitation. Caggese at col. 5:46–6:10 does disclose using an adjustment
factor for the day of week the job is run, but it is not shown that this adjusted
estimate is “task estimation logic [that] is to produce an adjusted estimate
based on complete information when the task is to be executed”. Similarly,
Caggese at col. 4:28–33 discloses the planning of the job but no reference is
made to the claimed adjusted estimate based on complete information “when
the task is to be executed.” Here, the citation to the prior art fails to show
the adjusted estimate based on compete information is done when the task is
to be executed. For this reason the rejection of claim 16 and its dependent
claims is not sustained.
Appeal 2012-012118
Application 11/847,254

9
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
We conclude that Appellants have shown that the Examiner erred in
rejecting the claims as listed in the Rejection section above.

DECISION
The Examiner’s rejection of claims 1, 2, and 4–19 is reversed.

REVERSED

Klh