Ex Parte Sikes

Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences

Jun 9, 2011

11952490 (B.P.A.I. Jun. 9, 2011)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
____________

BEFORE THE BOARD OF PATENT APPEALS
AND INTERFERENCES
____________

Ex parte TABATHA L. SIKES
____________

Appeal 2010-004651
Application 11/952,490
Technology Center 3600
____________

Before: MURRIEL E. CRAWFORD, HUBERT C. LORIN, and MICHAEL
W. KIM, Administrative Patent Judges.

KIM, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL
Appeal 2010-004651
Application 11/952,490

2
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
This is an appeal from the final rejection of claims 1-23. We have
jurisdiction to review the case under 35 U.S.C. §§ 134 and 6 (2002).
The claimed invention is directed to systems and methods for
generating and communicating notifications (Spec., para. [0008]). Claim 1,
reproduced below, is further illustrative of the claimed subject matter.
1. A method comprising:
receiving a service request;
generating an order commitment notification based on
the service request; and
automatically transmitting the order commitment
notification to a customer and a local service performer.

Claims 1-21 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) as anticipated by
Storch (US Pat. 5,920,846, iss. Jul. 6, 1999); and claims 22 and 23 stand
rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Storch in view of
Elliott (US Pub. 2008/0095339 A1, pub. Apr. 24, 2008).
We REVERSE.

ISSUE
Did the Examiner err in asserting that Storch anticipates automatically
transmitting a notification to a customer and a local service performer, as
recited in independent claims 1, 10, and 14?

FINDINGS OF FACT
Storch
Storch discloses computer order entry system 254 that performs input
processing, storage, output and control functions on data used to generate a
Appeal 2010-004651
Application 11/952,490

3
service order. Alternatively, a customer may input a request through a
customer direct access computer order entry system (col. 53, ll. 62-67).
The order taker person 252 or customer inputs customer information
into the computer order entry system 254, which includes the type of service
requested. Either the computer order entry system 254 or the order taker
person 252 accesses a computer data processing system known in the art as
Premises Information System (PREMIS) (col. 54, ll. 1-11).
PREMIS 256 then transmits the appropriate address-based
information to the computer order entry system 254 or the order taker person
252. The computer order entry system 254 data processes the customer
information input by the order taker person or customer and address-based
information received from PREMIS into the service order format (col. 54, ll.
18-27).
When the service order is completed, PREMIS receives a copy of the
completed service order (col. 54, ll. 44-48).
Tier 1 (or NET 1) transmits information relating to the service order to
all computer systems. In Tier 1, all computer systems are notified of the
existence of the service order which may require data processing functions
by each system (col. 56, ll. 28-34).

ANALYSIS
We are persuaded the Examiner erred in asserting that Storch
anticipates automatically transmitting a notification to a customer and a local
service performer, as recited in independent claims 1, 10, and 14 (App. Br.
14-15; Reply Br. 2-3). The Examiner asserts that because a customer may
directly input data into computer order entry system 254, that when the
Appeal 2010-004651
Application 11/952,490

4
service order is transmitted to “all computer systems,” the customer is
notified via computer order entry system 254 (Exam’r’s Ans. 18). However,
column 56, lines 28-34 of Storch disclose that the notifications are sent to all
computer systems which may perform data processing functions on the
service order. As Storch does not disclose how computer order entry system
254 would perform data processing functions on a service order, we do not
agree with Appellant that the service order is sent to the customer via
computer order entry system 254 so as to anticipate transmitting a
notification to a customer, as recited in independent claims 1, 10, and 14.
The decision of the Examiner to reject claims 1-23 is REVERSED.

REVERSED

hh