Ex Parte Vogel et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Feb 24, 2013

10369349 (P.T.A.B. Feb. 24, 2013)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
____________

BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
____________

Ex parte ERIC S. VOGEL and DEAN E. MOODY
____________

Appeal 2010-010205
Application 10/369,349
Technology Center 3600
____________

Before: ANTON W. FETTING, JOSEPH A. FISCHETTI, and
MICHAEL W. KIM, Administrative Patent Judges.

KIM, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL
Appeal 2010-010205
Application 10/369,349

2
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
This is an appeal from the final rejection of claims 1-251. We have
jurisdiction to review the case under 35 U.S.C. §§ 134 and 6.
The invention relates to analyzing resource supply and demand
models for planning the deployment of a workforce or other resources (Spec.
1:9-11).
Claim 1, reproduced below, is further illustrative of the claimed
subject matter.
1. A computer-implemented method for planning
resource allocations, the method comprising:
storing information relating to a plurality of resources,
wherein the information defines characteristics of each
resource, with the characteristics including availability data for
each resource, the availability data identifying an allocation
status during at least one future time period;
executing instructions on data processing apparatus to
determine a state of resource al1ocation as of a selected time
period based on the stored information, wherein the state of
resource allocation identifies an allocation status for the
plurality of resources as of the selected time period;
predicting an attrition of resources for each of a plurality
of future time periods based, at least in part, on a projected rate
of attrition of resources for the plurality of future time periods;
executing instructions on data processing apparatus to
determine a change in a supply of resources for each of the
plurality of future time periods based, at least in part, on the
stored availability data and the predicted attrition of resources;
determining a change in a demand for resources for each
of the plurality of future time periods by collecting projected
demand data;

1 Our decision will make reference to the Appellants’ Appeal Brief (“App.
Br.,” filed November 23, 2009) and Reply Brief (“Reply Br.,” July 9, 2010),
and the Examiner’s Answer (“Ans.,” mailed February 22, 2010).
Appeal 2010-010205
Application 10/369,349

3
executing instructions on data processing apparatus to
display on a display device an identification of the change in
supply of resources and the change in demand for resources for
each of the plurality of future time periods;
executing instructions on data processing apparatus to
combine the change in the supply of resources for each of the
plurality of future time periods and the change in the demand
for resources for each of the plurality of future time periods to
identify at least one of projected resource needs or projected
excess resources for each of the plurality of future time periods;
executing instructions on data processing apparatus to
display on the display device data representing at least one of
identified projected resource needs or identified projected
excess resources for each of the plurality of future time periods;
receiving an identification of selected planning options
for reducing at least one of identified projected resource needs
or identified projected excess resources for each of the plurality
of future time periods;
executing instructions on data processing apparatus to
display on the display device a calculated result of the selected
planning options for each of the plurality of future time periods;
and
generating a resource allocation action plan from the
selected planning options.

Claims 1-25 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Sanders (US 6,574,605 B1; iss. Jun. 3, 2003) and Stephen
G. Hoffman, A MODEL TO FORECAST CIVILIAN PERSONNEL
INVENTORY FOR THE NATIONAL SECURITY AGENCY, Thesis, Graduate
Sch. of Eng’g of the Air Force Inst. of Tech., 1-86 (Mar. 1998) (hereinafter
“Hoffman”).
We AFFIRM.

Appeal 2010-010205
Application 10/369,349

4
ANALYSIS
We are not persuaded the Examiner erred in asserting that a
combination of Sanders and Hoffman renders obvious the subject matter of
claims 1-25 (App. Br. 11-16; Reply Br. 1-5). After carefully considering all
of Appellants’ arguments, we agree with and adopt the Examiner’s findings
and rationales, as set forth on pages 12-15 of the Examiner’s Answer.

DECISION
The decision of the Examiner to reject claims 1-25 is AFFIRMED.
No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with
this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a). See 37 C.F.R.
§ 1.136(a)(1)(iv).

AFFIRMED

hh