Ex Parte Thompson et alDownload PDFPatent Trial and Appeal BoardFeb 16, 201713440892 (P.T.A.B. Feb. 16, 2017) Copy Citation United States Patent and Trademark Office UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE United States Patent and Trademark Office Address: COMMISSIONER FOR PATENTS P.O.Box 1450 Alexandria, Virginia 22313-1450 www.uspto.gov APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE FIRST NAMED INVENTOR ATTORNEY DOCKET NO. CONFIRMATION NO. 13/440,892 04/05/2012 Roland R. THOMPSON 087354-0136 7712 22428 7590 02/21 Foley & Lardner LLP 3000 K STREET N.W. SUITE 600 WASHINGTON, DC 20007-5109 EXAMINER GART, MATTHEW S ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 3623 NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE 02/21/2017 ELECTRONIC Please find below and/or attached an Office communication concerning this application or proceeding. The time period for reply, if any, is set in the attached communication. Notice of the Office communication was sent electronically on above-indicated "Notification Date" to the following e-mail address(es): ipdocketing @ foley. com PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07) UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD Ex parte ROLAND R. THOMPSON, MICHAELS. BLACKSTONE, and RALPH JULIUS Appeal 2014-008398 Application 13/440,892 Technology Center 3600 Before ANTON W. FETTING, KEVIN W, CHERRY, BRUCE T. WIEDER and, Administrative Patent Judges. FETTING, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL STATEMENT OF THE CASE1 Roland R. Thompson, Michael S. Blackstone, and Ralph Julius (Appellants) seek review under 35 U.S.C. § 134 of a final rejection of claims 1—4, 6—15, and 17—19, the only claims pending in the application on appeal. We have jurisdiction over the appeal pursuant to 35 U.S.C. §6(b). 1 Our decision will make reference to the Appellants’ Appeal Brief (“App. Br.,” filed May 15, 2014) and Reply Brief (“Reply Br.,” filed August 1, 2014), and the Examiner’s Answer (“Ans.,” mailed June 6, 2014), and Final Action (“Final Act.,” mailed April 30, 2013). Appeal 2014-008398 Application 13/440,892 The Appellants invented “a human resource management system for performing substitute fulfillment, compiling absence and entitlement information, notifications of unexpected events, schedules, instructional information, and notifications of benefits and policies.” Specification 1. An understanding of the invention can be derived from a reading of exemplary claim 1, which is reproduced below (bracketed matter and some paragraphing added). 1. A position fulfillment system comprising: one or more databases comprising: position records for positions of one or more organizations, the respective position records comprising required skill information for the respective positions and worksite location information for the respective positions; and worker records, the respective worker records having skill information for the respective workers; a server, comprising one or more computers, coupled for accessing the one or more databases, the server configured with program code, when executed, to: [1] provide a respective worker web page from the server for each of multiple of the workers of the one or more organizations, each of the respective web pages accessed by a respective one of the respective workers with a respective personal identifier and that receives details of a future absence of the respective worker for his/her respective position; [2] receive, from the server, information about a plurality of the respective positions to be filled at one or more locations associated with the one or more organizations, and update the one or more databases, 2 Appeal 2014-008398 Application 13/440,892 the receive operation comprising received details of a future absence from a first one of the multiple workers; [3] dynamically generate, from the server, a plurality of lists of one or more workers, each generated list comprising one or more workers qualified to fill one of the respective positions to be filled at one of the one or more locations, using the worker records associated with the respective workers and the position record for the respective position, wherein multiple of the lists comprise a plurality of workers, wherein a first one of the lists is generated for the position of the first worker after receiving the details of the future absence from the first worker, with the list based at least in part on the required skill information for the respective position of the first worker from the one or more databases; [4] post offers for acceptance of the positions, from the server on a website, to multiple workers listed on the generated lists for the plurality of the positions, wherein the respective offers indicate directly or indirectly respective worksite locations for the respective positions; [5] receive, from the server, on the website, an acceptance from one of the workers agreeing to fill the position of the first worker; and [6] secure immediately, using the server, in response to the receiving the acceptance, the position of the first worker for the one worker, the securing comprising halting, at the server, on-going fulfillment processing of the position of the first worker with any other worker thereby denying/rejecting any acceptance from any other worker. 3 Appeal 2014-008398 Application 13/440,892 The Examiner relies upon the following prior art: McGovern US 6,370,510 B1 Mitsuoka US 6,466,914 B2 Apr. 9, 2002 Oct. 15,2002 Myriad locations, student populations no longer hinder substitute management system (Los Angeles County Office of Education uses CRS Inc's Substitute Finder education administration software) (January 1992, SF1: Paragraph 7, Page 2), hereinafter reference SF1; Haddad, Computer Calls For Substitutes (December 15, 1994), hereinafter reference SF2; Daly, Substitute teacher shortage hits schools (April 24, 1998), hereinafter SF3; Stepp, School Watch The daily hunt for substitute teachers (April 9, 1998), hereinafter SF4. http://crs-iver.com 1999—2001 (CRS) Claims 1—4, 7—15, 18, and 19 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over McGovern and CRS, evidenced by SF1, SF2, SF3, and Claims 6 and 17 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over McGovern and CRS, evidenced by SF1, SF2, SF3, and SF4, and Mitsuoka. The issues of obviousness turn primarily on whether the applied art describes terminating all but the first accepted offer from a number of parallel job offer processes. SF4. ISSUES 4 Appeal 2014-008398 Application 13/440,892 FACTS PERTINENT TO THE ISSUES The following enumerated Findings of Fact (FF) are believed to be supported by a preponderance of the evidence. Facts Related to Appellants ’ Disclosure 01. In a preferred embodiment, using the information in the database 14, the server 12 can generate a listing of opportunities for substitute workers 32 and make the listing available through a web site interface. Substitute workers 32 can access the site and select an assignment. If the same assignment is currently being processed or waiting to be processed by the IVR system 24, then the assignment selection is recognized, further processing is halted, and appropriate reports generated. Data record 400 stores the information for said reports. Spec. para. 86. Facts Related to the Prior Art McGovern 02. McGovern is directed to an interactive computer-driven employment recruiting service, and more specifically, to ways to advertise available positions and receive resumes electronically from prospective applicants, and enable prospective applicants to use the Internet to find those available positions. McGovern 1:14—21. CRS 03. CRS is directed to describing its product Subfmder to automate employee absence reporting. CRS p. 5. 5 Appeal 2014-008398 Application 13/440,892 ANALYSIS We are persuaded by Appellants’ argument that the applied art fails to describe sending out plural offers for acceptance in parallel and halting processing for any other offer selected after one offer is accepted. App. Br. 14—22. The Examiner responds that the Specification does not support parallel processes. Ans. 3—5. The problem with the Examiner’s finding is that selecting a position to accept is within the scope of the recited on-going fulfillment processing. Claim 1 implicitly recites plural such acceptance processes, but terminating all but the first instance. Claim 1 recites that it posts offers for acceptance of the positions, to multiple workers for the plurality of the positions. Claim 1 then recites that in response to the receiving the acceptance, it halts on-going fulfillment processing of the position of the first worker with any other worker thereby denying/rejecting any acceptance from any other worker. This implicitly recites that another on-going fulfillment acceptance processing is underway. The Specification also recites that when acceptance selection begins, if an acceptance of the same position is already in process, the one just being selected has its process terminated. In other words, there are plural offers outstanding at the same time, rather than making an offer and waiting for it to be turned down before extending another offer. Plural candidates can select to accept each such offer. Thus, the Examiner’s finding that the Specification does not support parallel offer processing is in error, and the Examiner makes no finding of such parallel processing in the art applied. 6 Appeal 2014-008398 Application 13/440,892 CONCLUSIONS OF LAW The rejection of claims 1—4, 7—15, 18, and 19 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over McGovern and CRS, evidenced by SF1, SF2, SF3, and SF4 is improper. The rejection of claims 6 and 17 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over McGovern and CRS, evidenced by SF1, SF2, SF3, and SF4, and Mitsuoka is improper. DECISION The rejection of claims 1—4, 6—15, and 17—19 is reversed. REVERSED 7 Copy with citationCopy as parenthetical citation