Ex Parte Shetty et al

Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences

Nov 17, 2009

10115473 (B.P.A.I. Nov. 17, 2009)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE 1
___________ 2
3
BEFORE THE BOARD OF PATENT APPEALS 4
AND INTERFERENCES 5
___________ 6
7
Ex parte RAVINDRA K. SHETTY, 8
CHANDRASHEKAR PADUBIDRI, 9
SREEDHARAN V. VENKATARAMAN, 10
MADHAVA K. VEMURI, and 11
ASHWIN KUMAR 12
___________ 13
14
Appeal 2009-005431 15
Application 10/115,473 16
Technology Center 3600 17
___________ 18
19
Decided: November 17, 2009 20
___________ 21
22
Before HUBERT C. LORIN, ANTON W. FETTING, and BIBHU R. 23
MOHANTY, Administrative Patent Judges. 24
FETTING, Administrative Patent Judge. 25
DECISION ON APPEAL 26
27
Appeal 2009-005431
Application 10/115,473

2
STATEMENT OF THE CASE 1
Ravindra K. Shetty, Chandrashekar Padubidri, Sreedharan V. 2
Venkataraman, Madhava K. Vemuri, and Ashwin Kumar (Appellants) seek 3
review under 35 U.S.C. § 134 (2002) of a non-final rejection of claims 1-19, 4
22-28, and 31-49, the only claims pending in the application on appeal. 5
We have jurisdiction over the appeal pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 6(b) 6
(2002). 7
SUMMARY OF DECISION1 8
We AFFIRM. 9
THE INVENTION 10
The Appellants invented a system for disruption handling in scheduling 11
systems (Specification 1:6-7). 12
An understanding of the invention can be derived from a reading of 13
exemplary claims 1 and 3, which are reproduced below [bracketed matter 14
and some paragraphing added]. 15
1. A method of handling disruptions to a plurality of related 16
schedules, the method comprising: 17
[1] prioritizing the disruptions in a list; 18

1 Our decision will make reference to the Appellants’ Appeal Brief (“App.
Br.,” filed April 9, 2008) and Reply Brief (“Reply Br.,” filed August 5,
2008), and the Examiner’s Answer (“Ans.,” mailed June 16, 2008).
Appeal 2009-005431
Application 10/115,473

3
[2] for the highest priority disruption in the list: 1
[a] generating a set of possible solutions to the 2
disruption; 3
[b] calculating a cascaded cost for individual possible 4
solutions; and 5
[3] selecting a solution to the disruption based on the 6
cascaded cost. 7
8
3. The method of claim 1 and further comprising: 9
[1] removing a disruption that has been solved from the list; 10
and 11
[2] repeating the elements of claim 1 for the items remaining 12
in the list. 13
14
15
THE REJECTIONS2 16
The Examiner relies upon the following prior art: 17
Crone US 7,092,894 B1 Aug. 15, 2006
Claims 1, 2, 4-11, 13-19, 22, 23, 25-28, 31, 32, 34, 37-40, 42, 43, 45, 48, 18
and 49 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 102(a)(e) as anticipated by Crone. 19
Claims 3, 12, 24, 33, 35, 36, 44, 46, and 47 stand rejected under 35 20
U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Crone. 21
22

2 The Appellants allege several distinctions between the claimed invention
and a Yu et al. reference. However, the Examiner has not relied on Yu et al.
in rejecting the claimed invention and as such the Appellants’ arguments
with respect to the Yu et al. reference are moot.
Appeal 2009-005431
Application 10/115,473

4
ISSUES 1
The issues pertinent to this appeal are: 2
• Whether the Appellants have sustained the burden of showing that the 3
Examiner erred in rejecting claims 1, 2, 4-11, 13-19, 22, 23, 25-28, 4
31, 32, 34, 37-40, 42, 43, 45, 48, and 49 under 35 U.S.C. § 102(a)(e) 5
as anticipated by Crone. 6
o This pertinent issue turns on whether Crone anticipates claim 1. 7
• Whether the Appellants have sustained the burden of showing that the 8
Examiner erred in rejecting claims 3, 12, 24, 33, 35, 36, 44, 46, and 47 9
under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as unpatentable over Crone. 10
o This pertinent issue turns on whether the Appellants’ arguments 11
supra in support of the independent claims are found 12
persuasive. 13
14
FACTS PERTINENT TO THE ISSUES 15
The following enumerated Findings of Fact (FF) are believed to be 16
supported by a preponderance of the evidence. 17
Facts Related to Appellants’ Disclosure 18
01. “Cascading costs include the cost of further disruptions to 19
schedules as a result of proposed solutions to a disruption.” 20
Specification 2:4-5. “The further disruptions are referred to as 21
cascading disruptions since they cascade from the original 22
disruption or solution to the disruption.” Specification 2:5-7. 23
Appeal 2009-005431
Application 10/115,473

5
Facts Related to the Prior Art 1
Crone 2
02. Crone is directed to the scheduling of movement of a plurality 3
of units through a complex movement defining system, such as 4
freight trains over a railroad system. Crone 1:13-16. 5
03. The precision control system uses an optimizing scheduler that 6
takes into account physical limitations, railroad policies; personnel 7
work rules, contractual terms and limitations, customer 8
limitations, and boundary limitations in determining an optimized 9
schedule. Crone 6:34-40. Upon the determination of a schedule, 10
the system determines a movement plan to carry out the schedule 11
and delivers the movement plan to persons or apparatus that will 12
carry out the movement plan. Crone 6:60-62 and 7:7-9. 13
04. The precision control system is designed to handle exceptions 14
or anomalies which cause elements of the network to get off-15
schedule, thereby causing a ripple through the system that causes 16
other elements to get off-schedule. Crone 8:21-27. For example, 17
the late arrival of a train on one trip may cause a locomotive to be 18
unavailable for a second trip, and the lateness of a second trip will 19
again cause the locomotive to be unavailable for a third trip. 20
Crone 8:27-31. Exception handling logic determines at what level 21
the anomaly may be resolved, such as a small anomaly may be 22
corrected by some small measures where as a larger anomaly may 23
require large scale rescheduling. Crone 8:36-45. The system uses 24
a cost reactive resource scheduler to minimize resource exception 25
Appeal 2009-005431
Application 10/115,473

6
while minimizing the global costs associated with a solution to the 1
exception. Crone 21:66-67 and 22:1-2. The cost reactive resource 2
scheduler is used to develop a schedule by evaluating the resource 3
exception and the cost associated with moves resulting in a 4
schedule that resolves the exception and represents a more 5
minimal cost solution. Crone 22:13-17. 6
05. The cost reactive resource scheduler receives a set of orders for 7
resources that define a scheduling problem. Crone 24:29-33. 8
Each order will contain a cost function and an earliest start time 9
and latest completion time. Crone 24:33-35. The cost reactive 10
scheduler will classify the scheduling problem based on a 11
predetermined parameter, such as costs constraints or resource 12
constraints. Crone 24:36-63. During the search for a solution to 13
the scheduling problem, the scheduler will emphasize costs or 14
another desired parameter. Crone 25:1-2. The search begins by 15
making a random move and the resulting resource exception and 16
cost function are scaled based on the classification of the problem 17
(i.e. a cost constrained problem weights costs more heavily). 18
Crone 25:46-55. Each subsequent move, the normalizing 19
component from the previous move is used to determine the 20
scaling parameter for the subsequent move. Crone 25:56-58. 21
06. The true optimization of the system includes the implicit use of 22
assigning priorities since although the cost of being late may be 23
great, there is no advantage to arriving early. Crone 9:8-23. 24
Appeal 2009-005431
Application 10/115,473

7
07. Optimization further includes a cost structure that assigns a cost 1
to each element. Crone 9:25-27. Incremental costs can include 2
fuel costs, employee wages, and time of locomotive use. Crone 3
9:27-29. 4
Facts Related To The Level Of Skill In The Art 5
08. Neither the Examiner nor the Appellants have addressed the 6
level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art of scheduling systems. 7
We will therefore consider the cited prior art as representative of 8
the level of ordinary skill in the art. See Okajima v. Bourdeau, 9
261 F.3d 1350, 1355 (Fed. Cir. 2001) (“[T]he absence of specific 10
findings on the level of skill in the art does not give rise to 11
reversible error ‘where the prior art itself reflects an appropriate 12
level and a need for testimony is not shown’”) (quoting Litton 13
Indus. Prods., Inc. v. Solid State Sys. Corp., 755 F.2d 158, 163 14
(Fed. Cir. 1985). 15
Facts Related To Secondary Considerations 16
09. There is no evidence on record of secondary considerations of 17
non-obviousness for our consideration. 18
PRINCIPLES OF LAW 19
Anticipation 20
"A claim is anticipated only if each and every element as set forth in the 21
claim is found, either expressly or inherently described, in a single prior art 22
reference." Verdegaal Bros. v. Union Oil Co. of California, 814 F.2d 628, 23
631 (Fed. Cir. 1987). "When a claim covers several structures or 24
Appeal 2009-005431
Application 10/115,473

8
compositions, either generically or as alternatives, the claim is deemed 1
anticipated if any of the structures or compositions within the scope of the 2
claim is known in the prior art." Brown v. 3M, 265 F.3d 1349, 1351 (Fed. 3
Cir. 2001). "The identical invention must be shown in as complete detail as 4
is contained in the ... claim." Richardson v. Suzuki Motor Co., 868 F.2d 5
1226, 1236 (Fed. Cir. 1989). The elements must be arranged as required by 6
the claim, but this is not an ipsissimis verbis test, i.e., identity of terminology 7
is not required. In re Bond, 910 F.2d 831, 832 (Fed. Cir. 1990). 8
Obviousness 9
A claimed invention is unpatentable if the differences between it and 10
the prior art are “such that the subject matter as a whole would have been 11
obvious at the time the invention was made to a person having ordinary skill 12
in the art.” KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 406 (2007); Graham 13
v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 13-14 (1966). 14
In Graham, the Court held that that the obviousness analysis is 15
bottomed on several basic factual inquiries: “[(1)] the scope and content of 16
the prior art are to be determined; [(2)] differences between the prior art and 17
the claims at issue are to be ascertained; and [(3)] the level of ordinary skill 18
in the pertinent art resolved.” Graham, 383 U.S. at 17. See also KSR, 550 19
U.S. at 406. “The combination of familiar elements according to known 20
methods is likely to be obvious when it does no more than yield predictable 21
results.” KSR, 550 U.S. at 416. 22
Appeal 2009-005431
Application 10/115,473

9
ANALYSIS 1
Claims 1, 2, 4-11, 13-19, 22, 23, 25-28, 31, 32, 34, 37-40, 42, 43, 45, 48, 2
and 49 rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 102(a)(e) as anticipated by Crone 3
The Appellants first contend that (1) Crone fails to describe prioritizing 4
the disruptions in a list, as required by limitation [1] of claim 1. App. Br. 5
13-14. The Appellants specifically argue that Crone fails to describe any 6
disruptions and any prioritization. App. Br. 13-14. 7
We disagree with the Appellants. Crone describes exceptions or 8
anomalies, which are events that occur that cause subsequent events on the 9
schedule to be delayed or cancelled. FF 04. That is, exceptions or 10
anomalies are disruptions in a schedule. Crone further describes that the 11
exceptions are evaluated to determine at what level the anomalies can be 12
resolved. FF 04. Small anomalies may only require small corrections 13
whereas large anomalies could require rescheduling. FF 04. Rescheduling 14
requires optimizing the new schedule to minimize additional exceptions or 15
anomalies and to minimize costs. FF 04. 16
In searching for a solution, the system determines all subsequent 17
exceptions that will be created by the initial exception and prioritizes the 18
handling of the exceptions based on costs constraints, resources constraints, 19
or any other parameter. FF 05. That is, all of the exceptions or disruptions 20
are grouped and managed based on an optimized schedule. According to 21
Crone, implicit in the optimization is the assignment of priorities in order to 22
minimize costs. FF 06. As such, Crone explicitly describes prioritizing the 23
disruptions in a list. 24
Appeal 2009-005431
Application 10/115,473

10
The Appellants further contend that (2) Crone fails to describe 1
generating a set of possible solutions to the disruption, as required by 2
limitation [2][a] of claim 1. App. Br. 14. We disagree with the Appellants. 3
As discussed supra, Crone describes searching for a solution to exceptions 4
and any orders that create a scheduling problem. FF 05. Crone further 5
describes that solutions are determined and scaled based on an optimization 6
parameter. FF 05. The most optimal solution or schedule is selected and 7
implemented. FF 03. As such, Crone describes generating a set of possible 8
solutions to the disruption. 9
The Appellants also contend that (3) Crone fails to describe calculating a 10
cascaded cost for individual possible solutions and fails to specifically 11
mention any cascaded costs structure, as required by limitation [2][b] of 12
claim 1. App. Br. 14-15. 13
We disagree with the Appellants. The Specification describes cascading 14
costs to include the cost of further disruptions to schedules as a result of 15
proposed solutions to a disruption. FF 01. Crone describes assigning a cost 16
to each element of the schedule and considers incremental costs such as fuel 17
costs, employee wages, and time of locomotive use. FF 07. As discussed 18
supra, Crone describes that all additionally created exceptions due to the 19
initial exception are determined and optimized based on cost. 20
This optimization of all of the elements on a schedule based to determine 21
a schedule with the optimized costs is the same as calculating cascading 22
costs for each possible solution because the optimization requires 23
determining the total costs of each element and each schedule for each 24
solution until an optimal solution is found. As such, Crone describes 25
Appeal 2009-005431
Application 10/115,473

11
calculating a cascaded cost for individual possible solutions in a manner that 1
is consistent with the Specification. 2
The Appellants additionally contend that (4) Crone fails to describe 3
selecting a solution to the disruption based on the cascaded costs, as required 4
by limitation [3] of claim 1. App. Br. 15. We disagree with the Appellants. 5
As discussed supra, cascading costs are described as costs that include the 6
cost of further disruptions and Crone describes selecting an optimization 7
solution based on such costs. FF 04. As such, Crone describes a solution to 8
the disruption based on the cascaded costs. 9
The Appellants have not sustained the burden of showing that the 10
Examiner erred in rejecting claims 1, 2, 4-11, 13-19, 22, 23, 25-28, 31, 32, 11
34, 37-40, 42, 43, 45, 48, and 49 under 35 U.S.C. § 102(a)(e) as anticipated 12
by Crone. 13
14
Claims 3, 12, 24, 33, 35, 36, 44, 46, and 47 rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 15
103(a) as unpatentable over Crone 16
The Appellants contend that dependant claims 3, 12, 24, 33, 35, 36, 44, 17
46, and 47 are allowable for the same reasons discussed supra in support of 18
the independent claims they depend upon. App. Br. 15-16. However, those 19
arguments were not found persuasive supra and are not found persuasive 20
here for the same reasons. 21
The Appellants have not sustained the burden of showing that the 22
Examiner erred in rejecting claims 3, 12, 24, 33, 35, 36, 44, 46, and 47 under 23
35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Crone. 24
Appeal 2009-005431
Application 10/115,473

12
1
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW 2
The Appellants have not sustained the burden of showing that the 3
Examiner erred in rejecting claims 1, 2, 4-11, 13-19, 22, 23, 25-28, 31, 32, 4
34, 37-40, 42, 43, 45, 48, and 49 under 35 U.S.C. § 102(a)(e) as anticipated 5
by Crone. 6
The Appellants have not sustained the burden of showing that the 7
Examiner erred in rejecting claims 3, 12, 24, 33, 35, 36, 44, 46, and 47 under 8
35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Crone. 9
10
DECISION 11
To summarize, our decision is as follows. 12
• The rejection of claims 1, 2, 4-11, 13-19, 22, 23, 25-28, 31, 32, 34, 13
37-40, 42, 43, 45, 48, and 49 under 35 U.S.C. § 102(a)(e) as 14
anticipated by Crone is sustained. 15
• The rejection of claims 3, 12, 24, 33, 35, 36, 44, 46, and 47 under 35 16
U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Crone is sustained. 17
No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with this 18
appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a)(1)(iv)(2007). 19
20
AFFIRMED 21
22
Appeal 2009-005431
Application 10/115,473

13
1
2
mev 3
4
HONEYWELL INTERNATIONAL INC. 5
PATENT SERVICES 6
101 COLUMBIA ROAD 7
P O BOX 2245 8
MORRISTOWN NJ 07962-2245 9