Ex Parte Schmidt

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

May 6, 2013

11348637 (P.T.A.B. May. 6, 2013)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
____________

BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
____________

Ex parte MARTIN SCHMIDT
___________

Appeal 2011-000596
Application 11/348,637
Technology Center 3600
____________

Before ANTON W. FETTING, BIBHU R. MOHANTY, and
MEREDITH C. PETRAVICK Administrative Patent Judges.

PETRAVICK, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL
Appeal 2011-000596
Application 11/348,637

2
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Martin Schmidt (Appellant) seeks our review under 35 U.S.C. § 134
of the final rejection of claims 8 and 23-41. We have jurisdiction under 35
U.S.C. § 6(b).

SUMMARY OF DECISION
We REVERSE.

THE INVENTION
Claim 8 and 29, reproduced below, are illustrative of the subject
matter on appeal.
8. A computer-implemented method for directing
tasks to be performed by one or more task
executors in a work environment, the method
comprising:
directing a first set of tasks to a first
computer-implemented folder assignable to
multiple different task executors, at least one of the
tasks representing a work item to be performed in
a work environment;
after the tasks are directed to the computer-
implemented folder, assigning a selected task
executor to the first computer-implemented folder
so that the tasks are electronically communicated
to the selected task executor indicating that the
tasks are to be completed by the selected task
executor, the selected task executor comprising a
human user in the work environment;
assigning the selected task executor to a
second computer-implemented folder so that a
second set of tasks directed to the second
computer-implemented folder is electronically
communicated to the selected task executor; and
Appeal 2011-000596
Application 11/348,637

3
after the selected task executor is assigned to
both the first and second computer-implemented
folders, displaying a work list for at least one the
first and second sets of tasks to selected task
executor on a graphical user interface in the work
environment.

29. A computer-implemented method for directing
tasks to be performed by one or more task
executors in a work environment, the method
comprising:
displaying to a supervisory user on a first
user interface in a work environment a first
computer-implemented folder that received a first
set of tasks, at least one task from the first set of
tasks representing a work item to be performed by
a human worker in the work environment;
receiving assignment input from the
supervisory user to assign a human task executor
to the first computer-implemented folder so that
the first set of tasks is electronically communicated
to the human task executor indicating that the first
set of tasks are to be completed by the human task
executor, wherein a work list of the first set of
tasks is displayed to the human task executor on a
second user interface in the work environment;
after the first set of tasks are electronically
communicated to the human task executor,
receiving confirmation input from the human task
executor indicating that at least one task from the
first set of tasks was completed by the human task
executor;
displaying to the supervisory user on the
first user interface in the work environment a
second computer-implemented folder that received
a second set of tasks, at least one task from the
second set of tasks representing a work item to be
performed by a machine in the work environment;
Appeal 2011-000596
Application 11/348,637

4
receiving assignment input from the
supervisory user to assign a machine task executor
to the second computer-implemented folder so that
the second set of tasks is electronically
communicated to the machine task executor
indicating that the tasks are to be completed by the
machine task executor; and
after the second set of tasks are
electronically communicated to the machine task
executor, receiving communication from the
machine task executor indicating that at least one
task from the second set of tasks was completed by
the machine task executor.

THE REJECTIONS
The Examiner relies upon the following as evidence of
unpatentability:
Beatty
Sandoval
Ishii
Fox
US 6,336,053 B1
US 6,345,259 B1
US 2004/0167652 A1
US 2005/0251418 A1
Jan. 1, 2002
Feb. 5, 2002
Aug. 26, 2004
Nov. 10, 2005

The following rejections are before us for review:
1. Claims 8 and 23-25 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. §103(a) as
being unpatentable over Ishii and Fox.
2. Claims 28-35 and 38-41 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. §103(a)
as being unpatentable over Ishii, Fox, and Beatty.
3. Claims 26 and 27 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. §103(a) as being
unpatentable over Ishii, Fox, and Sandoval.
Appeal 2011-000596
Application 11/348,637

5
4. Claims 36 and 37 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. §103(a) as being
unpatentable over Ishii, Fox, Beatty, and Sandoval.

ANALYSIS
Claims 8 and 23-25 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. §103(a) as being obvious
over Ishii and Fox
We are persuaded by the Appellant’s argument (App. Br. 5-11 and
Reply Br. 2 ) that the Examiner erred in rejecting claims 8 and 23-25 under
35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over Ishii and Fox. Claim 8
requires two computer-implemented folders each having a set of tasks.
Claim 8 (“directing a first set of tasks to a first computer-implemented
folder” and “a second set of tasks directed to the second computer-
implemented folder”). The Examiner seems to equate, though not clearly,
the claimed folders to Ishii’s each individual task in their task list storage
means (see Ishii para. [0014]). See Ans. 32-34. However, as the Appellant
argues (see Reply Br. 2), claim 8 requires that both the first and second
computer-implemented folders have a set of a plural number of tasks. Ishii’s
individual tasks do not teach the required set having a plural number of
tasks.
We note that the Examiner does not rely upon Fox to cure the
deficiency above, or provide any other rationale as to why claim 8 would
have been obvious. See Ans. 3-7. Accordingly, the rejection of claims 8,
and claims 23-25, dependent thereon, under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) over Ishii
and Fox is reversed.

Appeal 2011-000596
Application 11/348,637

6
Claims 28-35 and 38-41 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. §103(a) as being
obvious over Ishii, Fox, and Beatty
Claims 28
Claim 28 is dependent on claim 8, whose rejection we have reversed
above. For the same reasons, we find that the Examiner erred in rejecting
claim 28 under 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over Ishii, Fox, and
Beatty. Cf. In re Fritch, 972 F.2d 1260, 1266 (Fed. Cir. 1992)
(“[D]ependent claims are nonobvious if the independent claims from which
they depend are nonobvious.”) We note that Beatty was not relied upon to
cure the deficiency discussed above.
Accordingly, the rejection of claim 28 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) over
Ishii, Fox, and Beatty is reversed.

Claims 29-35 and 38
We are persuaded by the Appellant’s argument (App. Br. 11-15 and
Reply Br. 2) that the Examiner erred in rejecting claims 29-35 and 38-41
under 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over Ishii, Fox, and Beatty.
Similar to claim 8, claim 29 requires a first computer-implemented folder
with a first set of tasks and a second computer-implemented folder with a
second set of task. In rejecting claim 29, the Examiner seems to improperly
equate, though again not clearly, Ishii’s task list storage means to both of
these folders (see Ans. 12 and 14 (for both the first and second computer
implemented folder the examiner cites “Ishii: Para [0014]; Tasks are stored
in ‘task list storage means’)).
Further, in as much as the Examiner may be equating Ishii’s
individual tasks in the task list storage means, to the computer-implemented
Appeal 2011-000596
Application 11/348,637

7
folders, we find that the Examiner erred for the reasons discussed above with
regards to the rejection of claim 8.
Accordingly, we reverse the rejection of claims 29, and claims 30-35
and 38, dependent thereon, under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) over Ishii, Fox, and
Beatty.

Claims 39-41
Claim 39 recites limitations similar to those at issue above with
regards to claim 29, and the Examiner rejects claim 39 using the same
rationale used to reject claim 29. See Ans. 21-24, 51. Accordingly, for the
same reasons a discussed above, we reverse the rejection of claim 39, and
claims 40-41, dependent thereon, under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) over Ishii, Fox,
and Beatty.

Claims 26 and 27 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. §103(a) as being obvious
over Ishii, Fox, and Sandoval and Claims 36 and 37 are rejected under 35
U.S.C. §103(a) as being obvious over Ishii, Fox, Beatty, and Sandoval
These rejections are directed to claims dependent on claims 8 and 29,
whose rejections we have reversed above. For the same reasons, we find
that the Examiner erred in rejecting claims 26, 27, 36, and 37 under 35
U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over the prior art. Cf. In re Fritch, 972
F.2d 1260, 1266 (Fed. Cir. 1992) (“[D]ependent claims are nonobvious if the
independent claims from which they depend are nonobvious.”) We note that
Sandoval was not relied upon to cure the deficiency discussed above.
Accordingly, the rejection of claims 26 and 27 under 35 U.S.C. §
103(a) over Ishii, Fox, and Sandoval is reversed and the rejection of claims
Appeal 2011-000596
Application 11/348,637

8
36 and 37 under 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over Ishii, Fox,
Beatty, and Sandoval.

DECISION
The decision of the Examiner to reject claims 8 and 23-41 is reversed.

REVERSED

Klh