Ex Parte Parikshya et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Dec 18, 2012

11937178 (P.T.A.B. Dec. 18, 2012)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
____________

BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
____________

Ex parte DEBABRAT PARIKSHYA and KRISHNA RAMKRISHNAN
___________

Appeal 2011-009886
Application 11/937,178
Technology Center 3600
____________

Before ANTON W. FETTING, JOSEPH A. FISCHETTI, and
MEREDITH C. PETRAVICK, Administrative Patent Judges.

PETRAVICK, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL

STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Debabrat Parikshya (Appellants) seek our review under 35 U.S.C.
§ 134 of the final rejection of claims 23-26, 28-36, and 38-47. We have
jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). An oral hearing was held on December
6, 2012.

Appeal 2011-009886
Application 11/937,178

2
SUMMARY OF DECISION
We AFFIRM. 1
THE INVENTION
This invention is “methods and system for assigning work to account
collectors and monitoring and tracking work performed by account
collectors.” Spec. para. [01].
Claim 23, reproduced below, is illustrative of the subject matter on
appeal.
23. A computer-implemented method comprising:
accessing collections data that references overdue
accounts in which customers are late on payment;
providing, by one or more computers, a
graphical user interface that allows an account
collector team leader to enter values for one or
more criteria that are used for selecting a subset of
the overdue accounts, and to enter data identifying
a particular account collector from among multiple
account collectors to which the subset of the
overdue accounts is to be redistributed, wherein,
for one or more of the overdue accounts of the
subset, the particular account collector to which
the one or more overdue accounts is to be
redistributed is different than a currently assigned
account collector to which the one or more
overdue accounts is currently assigned;
receiving the values for the criteria and the
data identifying a particular account collector, that
have been entered by the account collector team
leader through the graphical user interface;

1 Our decision will make reference to the Appellants’ Appeal Brief (“App.
Br.,” filed Mar. 22, 2011) and Reply Brief (“Reply Br.,” filed May 4, 2011),
and the Examiner’s Answer (“Ans.,” mailed Apr. 28, 2011).

Appeal 2011-009886
Application 11/937,178

3

selecting the subset of the overdue accounts
using the values that have been entered by the
account collector team leader; and
redistributing the subset of the overdue
accounts to the particular account collector for
collection.

THE REJECTIONS
The Examiner relies upon the following as evidence of
unpatentability:
Piazza
Friedman
Tracey
Hoff
Kass
US 2003/0061358 A1
US 2004/0010458 A1
US 2004/0254823 A1
US 2008/0195429 A1
US 2010/0161459 A1
Mar. 27, 2003
Jan. 15, 2004
Dec. 16, 2004
Aug. 14, 2008
Jun. 24, 2010

The following rejections are before us for review:
1. Claims 23, 27-31, 33, 37-41, 43, and 45-47 are rejected under
35 U.S.C. §103(a) as being unpatentable over Tracey, Hoff, and
Kass.
2. Claims 24-25, 32, 34, 35, and 42 are rejected under 35 U.S.C.
§103(a) as being unpatentable over Tracey, Hoff, Kass, and
Piazza.
3. Claims 26, 36, and 44 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. §103(a) as
being unpatentable over Tracey, Hoff, Kass, and Friedman.

Appeal 2011-009886
Application 11/937,178

4
ISSUES
The first issue is whether claims 23, 27-31, 33, 37-41, 43, and 45-47
are unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. §103(a) over Tracey, Hoff, and Kass.
Specifically, the major issue is whether the combination of the prior art
teaches “providing, by one or more computers, a graphical user interface that
allows an account collector team leader . . . to enter data identifying a
particular account collector from among multiple account collectors to
which the subset of overdue accounts is to be redistributed.” The rejection
of claims 24-25, 32, 34, 35, and 42 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. §103(a) as
being unpatentable over Tracey, Hoff, Kass, and Piazza also turns on this
issue.
The second issue is whether 26, 36, and 44 are unpatentable under 35
U.S.C. §103(a) over Tracey, Hoff, Kass, and Friedman. Specifically, the
major issue is whether the combination of the prior art teaches “displaying
the quantity of overdue accounts in the subset on the graphical user
interface” and “determining that . . . the account collector team leader has
selected a control on the graphical user interface for initiating
redistribution.”

FINDINGS OF FACT
We find that the following findings of fact are supported by at least a
preponderance of the evidence. Ethicon, Inc. v. Quigg, 849 F.2d 1422, 1427
(Fed. Cir. 1988) (explaining the general evidentiary standard for proceedings
before the Office).
We adopt the Examiner’s findings of fact which appear in the Answer.

Appeal 2011-009886
Application 11/937,178

5

ANALYSIS
The rejection of claims 23, 27-31, 33, 37-41, 43, and 45-47 under §103(a) as
being unpatentable over Tracey, Hoff, and Kass
Claims 23, 33, and 43
To contest the Examiner’s rejection of claims 23, 33, and 43 the
Appellants argue that none of Tracey, Hoff, and Kass teaches “providing . . .
a graphical user interface that allows an account collector team leader . . . to
enter data identifying a particular account collector from among multiple
account collectors to which the subset of the overdue accounts is to be
redistributed.” App. Br. 5-8. We find the Appellants’ argument
unpersuasive for the reasons given by the Examiner on pages 12-13 of the
Examiner’s Answer. We agree with the Examiner that the combined
teaching of Tracey, Hoff, and Kass would have led one of ordinary skill in
the art to the limitation at issue. The mere existence of differences between
the prior art and the claim does not establish nonobviousness. Dann v.
Johnston, 425 U.S. 219, 230, 189 USPQ 257, 261 (1976). The issue is
“whether the difference between the prior art and the subject matter in
question” is a difference sufficient to render the claimed subject matter
unobvious to one skilled in the applicable art.'" Dann, 425 U.S. at 228-29,
(citation omitted).
Accordingly, the rejection of claims 23, 33, and 43 under §103(a) as
being unpatentable over Tracey, Hoff, and Kass is affirmed.

Appeal 2011-009886
Application 11/937,178

6
Claim 45
We find the Appellants’ argument that the combination of Tracey,
Hoff, and Kass fails to disclose the limitation recited in claim 45
unpersuasive for the reasons given by the Examiner on pages 14-15 of the
Examiner’s Answer, which we will not repeat here.
Accordingly, the rejection of claim 45 §103(a) as being unpatentable
over Tracey, Hoff, and Kass is affirmed.

Claims 29, 31, 39, and 41
We find the Appellants’ argument that the combination of Tracey,
Hoff, and Kass fails to disclose the limitations recited in claims 29, 31, 39,
and 41 unpersuasive for the reasons given by the Examiner on pages 14 of
the Examiner’s Answer, which we will not repeat here.
Accordingly, the rejection of claims 29, 31, 39, and 41 §103(a) as
being unpatentable over Tracey, Hoff, and Kass is affirmed.

Claims 27-28, 30, 37-38, 40, and 46-47
These claims were not argued separately with any specificity, so we
affirm this rejection for the same reasons as above.

The rejection of claims 26, 36, and 44 under 35 U.S.C. §103(a) as being
unpatentable over Tracey, Hoff, Kass, and Friedman
Claims 26 and 36
We find the Appellants’ argument that the combination of Tracey,
Hoff, Kass, and Friedman fails to disclose the limitations recited in claims
Appeal 2011-009886
Application 11/937,178

7
26 and 36 unpersuasive for the reasons given on pages 13-14 of the
Examiner’s Answer, which we will not repeat here.
Accordingly, the rejection of claims 26 and 36 under §103(a) as being
unpatentable over Tracey, Hoff, Kass, and Friedman is affirmed.
Claim 44
This claim was not argued separately with any specificity, so we
affirm the rejection for the same reasons as above.

The rejection of claims 24-25, 32, 34, 35, and 42 are rejected under 35
U.S.C. §103(a) as being unpatentable over Tracey, Hoff, Kass, and Piazza
These claims were not argued separately with any specificity, so we
affirm this rejection for the same reasons as above.

DECISION
The decision of the Examiner to reject claims 23-26, 28-36, and 38-47
is affirmed.
No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with
this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a). See 37 C.F.R.
§ 1.136(a)(1)(iv).
AFFIRMED

Klh