Ex Parte Terrill et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Mar 7, 2013

11237584 (P.T.A.B. Mar. 7, 2013)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
____________

BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
____________

Ex parte CHRIS S. TERRILL and TODD W. KIRBY
____________

Appeal 2010-009866
Application 11/237,584
Technology Center 2400
____________

Before THU A. DANG, JAMES R. HUGHES, and
GREGORY J. GONSALVES, Administrative Patent Judges.

GONSALVES, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL

Appeal 2010-009866
Application 11/237,584

2
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Appellants appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the final rejection of
claims 1-32 (App. Br. 4). We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We affirm.
The Invention
Exemplary claim 1 follows:
1. An apparatus for providing a feature in a network
environment, comprising:

a central web site operable to interface with one or more
end users and to manage information related to one or more of
the end users, wherein the central web site includes a post-date
component that comprises a set of questions for one or more of
the end users to complete in order to provide answers
associated with a meeting that took place between a first end
user and a second end user, and wherein the meeting occurs in a
physical location where the first end user and second end user
physically meet, and wherein the meeting is scheduled through
the central web site based on availability parameters of the first
end user and the second end user.

Claims 1, 3, 5-8, 11, 13, 15, 16, 18, 19, 21, 23, 24, 26, 28, 30, and 31
stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. §103(a) as being unpatentable over Truong
(U.S. Pat. App. Pub. No. 2006/0059159 A1, published March 16, 2006, filed
February 11, 2005) in view of Weiss (U.S. Pat. App. Pub. No.
2006/0059130 A1, published March 16, 2006, filed December 14, 2004) and
further in view of Immedient (Microsoft, Immedient Improves and
Streamlines Hiring with Microsoft Office Solution Accelerator for
Recruiting (Sept. 2003)) (Ans. 18-24).
Appeal 2010-009866
Application 11/237,584

3
Claims 2, 4, 12, 14, 20, 22, 27, and 29 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C.
§103(a) as being unpatentable over Truong in view of Weiss and Immedient
and further in view of Shostack (U.S. Pat. App. Pub. No. 2004/0249811 A1,
published December 9, 2004) (Ans. 24-25).
Claims 9, 17, 25, and 32 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. §103(a) as
being unpatentable over Truong in view of Weiss and Immedient and further
in view of Cohen (U.S. Pat. No. 7,203,674 B2, issued April 10, 2007, filed
February 15, 2002) (Ans. 25-26).
Claim 10 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. §103(a) as being
unpatentable over Truong in view of Weiss and Immedient and further in
view of Koningstein (U.S. Pat. App. Pub. No. 2006/0149625 A1, published
July 6, 2006, filed December 30 , 2004) (Ans. 26-27).

FACTUAL FINDINGS
We adopt the Examiner’s factual findings as set forth in the Answer
(Ans. 3, et seq.).

ISSUE
Appellants’ responses to the Examiner’s position present the
following issue:
Did the Examiner err in concluding that the combination of Truong,
Weiss, and Immedient teaches or would have suggested “a post-date
component that comprises a set of questions for one or more of the end users
to complete in order to provide answers associated with a meeting that took
place between a first end user and a second end user . . . and wherein the
meeting is scheduled through the central web site based on availability
Appeal 2010-009866
Application 11/237,584

4
parameters of the first end user and the second end user,” as recited in
independent claim 1 and as similarly recited in independent claims 11 and
19?

ANALYSIS
Appellants contend that the Examiner erred in rejecting independent
claims 1, 11, and 19 because the combination of Truong, Weiss, and
Immedient does not disclose the claim limitation emphasized above (App.
Br. 11-14). In support of their contention, Appellants argue that Truong
does not teach a set of questions and that Weiss and Immedient do not teach
a post-date component (id. at 11-12). In addition, Appellants argue that in
Immedient, “it is the Interviewer whose availability is the prerequisite for
the lunch meeting, but the counterparty’s availability is not even considered”
(id. at 13 (emphasis omitted)).
The Examiner concluded, however, that “it is the combination of
Truong, Weiss, and [Immedient], that teaches this claim, not Truong, Weiss,
or [Immedient] alone” (Ans. 29). First, the Examiner found that “Truong
discloses the central web site includes a post-date component that comprises
allowing one or more of the end users to provide evaluations associated with
a meeting that took place between a first end user and a second end user”
(id. at 27-28). Next, the Examiner also found that Weiss discloses that a
“user may rate candidates based on a variety of additionally provided
questions” (id. at 28). The Examiner also found that Immedient discloses
that “the meeting occurs in a physical location where the candidate and
interviewer physically meet (page 2, paragraph 4, ‘lunch interview’), and the
Appeal 2010-009866
Application 11/237,584

5
meeting is scheduled through the central online server based on availability
parameters of the candidate and interviewer” (id. at 29).
We agree with the Examiner’s conclusion and underlying findings of
fact. Appellants cannot show nonobviousness by attacking references
individually when the rejection is based on a combination of references. In
re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 426 (CCPA 1981) (citation omitted). Truong
discloses a “process for providing additional communication after a date or
other evaluation in the online dating server” (¶ [0010]). Weiss discloses that
“the user may rate candidates based on a variety of additionally provided
questions” (¶ [0011]). Immedient discloses “auto-generation of an
appropriate schedule based on a number of variables including interviewer
availability . . . . After interview, feedback is entered online to be reviewed
and evaluated in real-time by the hiring manager” (p. 2, ¶ [0003]). We
conclude, therefore, that the claim limitation in dispute is a combination of
the familiar elements taught by Truong, Weiss, and Immedient that would
have yielded predictable results. KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S.
398, 416 (2007).
Therefore, we find no error in the Examiner’s obviousness rejection of
independent claims 1, 11, and 19 as well as claims 2-10, 12-18, and 20-32
dependent therefrom because Appellants did not set forth any separate
patentability arguments for those dependent claims (see App. Br. 14).

DECISION
We affirm the Examiner’s decision rejecting claims 1-32 as being
unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a).
Appeal 2010-009866
Application 11/237,584

6
No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with
this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a)(1)(iv).

AFFIRMED

peb