Ex Parte Weber et al

Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences

Mar 5, 2010

10193193 (B.P.A.I. Mar. 5, 2010)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
____________________

BEFORE THE BOARD OF PATENT APPEALS
AND INTERFERENCES
____________________

Ex parte ANNETTE WEBER and DEBORAH CHRISMAN
____________________

Appeal 2009-004701
Application 10/193,193
Technology Center 2100
____________________

Decided: March 8, 2010
____________________

Before ST. JOHN COURTENAY III, CAROLYN D. THOMAS, and
DEBRA K. STEPHENS, Administrative Patent Judges.

STEPHENS, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL
Appeal 2009-004701
Application 10/193,193

2
Appellants appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) (2002) from a non-final
rejection of claims 1-3, 5-15 and 17-31 (App. Br. 3). Claims 4 and 16 were
previously cancelled (id.). We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b)
(2008).
We AFFIRM.
Introduction
According to Appellants, the invention relates to a system and method
“for electronically tracking problems and other issues” (Spec. 1, ll. 9-10). In
particular, “the system and method involves manufacturers, field
management, in-store merchandising specialists, retailers and store
personnel using a communication network that allow users to submit and
resolve in-store condition, merchandiser performance, product display, and
product service- related issues” (Spec. 1, ll. 10-14).

STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Exemplary Claims
Claims 1 and 3 are exemplary claims and are reproduced below:
1. A method for processing issues in a system including
a site processor coupled to at least one terminal through a
network, the method comprising:

storing contact information for at least one individual;

receiving issue information relating to an issue via the
network;

storing the issue information relating to the issue in a
database;

Appeal 2009-004701
Application 10/193,193

3
automatically sending at least a portion of the issue
information to the at least one individual;

automatically sending escalating notifications to the at
least one individual when a status of the issue has changed
within a specified time period;

receiving resolution information through the network, the
resolution information relating to a resolution of the issue; and

storing the resolution information in the database.

3. A method for processing issues in a system including
a site processor coupled to at least one terminal through a
network, the method comprising:

receiving issue information relating to an issue via the
network;

storing the issue information relating to the issue in a
database;

receiving resolution information through the network, the
resolution information relating to a resolution of the issue;

storing the resolution information in the database;

receiving follow-up information relating to a follow-up
of the resolution; and

storing the follow-up information in the database.

Prior Art
Powers 6,044,368 Mar. 28, 2000
Mongilio 6,463,437 B1 Oct. 8, 2002
Spielman 6,874,011 B1 Mar. 29, 2005

Appeal 2009-004701
Application 10/193,193

4
Rejections
Claims 1, 2, 5-14, and 17-31 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a)
as being unpatentable over Mongilio, Powers and Spielman.
Claims 3 and 15 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Mongilio and Powers.

GROUPING OF CLAIMS
(1) Appellants argue claims 1, 2, 5-14, and 17-31 as a group. (App.
Br. 7). We select independent claim 1 as the representative claim. We
therefore treat claims 2, 5-14, and 17-31 as standing or falling with
representative claim 1.
(2) Appellants argue claims 3 and 15 as a group (id. at 9). We select
independent claim 3 as the representative claim. We therefore treat claim 15
as standing or falling with representative claim 3.
We accept Appellants’ grouping of the claims. See 37 C.F.R.
§ 41.37(c)(1)(vii) (2008).

ISSUE 1
35 U.S.C. § 103(a): claims 1, 2, 5-14, and 17-31
Appellants argue Powers teaches that automated e-mails are sent to
pertinent people about pending commitments (App. Br. 8). However,
Appellants argue that automated emails do not “escalate” when the status of
an issue has changed, as claimed in representative claim 1 (id.).
The Examiner finds that Powers teaches “configuring notification
parameters and constraints with respect to sending time-sensitive
notification[s]” (Ans. 7). The Examiner finds that “notification events may
Appeal 2009-004701
Application 10/193,193

5
occur at scheduled time intervals” and that the notification software may be
tailored to allow for any sort of commitment and notification (e.g.,
notifications could be time-based, availability-based or based on other
criteria) (id. at 8).
The Examiner additionally finds that Powers discloses that
communication events may be represented in a string at designated time
intervals and notifications can be sent on a time-based criteria setting a
parameter (i.e., a string or thread assigned to particular issues) (id.). The
Examiner also finds Appellants argue features that are not recited in the
claims, as “email” is not in the claims (id.). However, the Examiner
nevertheless finds Mongilio and Powers provide for email notification (id.)

Issue 1: Have Appellants shown the Examiner erred in finding
Powers teaches or suggests automatically sending escalating notifications to
the at least one individual when a status of the issue has changed within a
specified time period?

FINDINGS OF FACT (FF)
We find as follows:
Powers Reference
(1) Powers teaches an apparatus and a method for tracking order
communications related to such issues as commitments made and fulfillment
of those commitments (col. 1, ll. 8-11).
(2) The system tracks data relative to commitments made,
commitments fulfilled, and notifications made (col. 10, ll. 39-42).
Supervisors and administrators may set success goals and ratios related to
Appeal 2009-004701
Application 10/193,193

6
notification levels or other criteria (col. 10, ll. 42-44). “[A] commitment
fulfillment threshold may be set such that, as long as the threshold is met,
notification of unfulfilled commitments is only made to original committing
agents and associated persons” (col. 10, ll. 44-46). However, as the margin
between the performance and threshold widens, higher and higher levels of
management are notified as the margin increases (col. 10, ll. 47-51).
Definitions
(3) Escalate is defined as “to increase in extent, volume, number,
amount, intensity, or scope” (MERRIAM-WEBSTER’S COLLEGIATE
DICTIONARY 394 (10th ed. 2000)).

PRINCIPLES OF LAW
In rejecting claims under 35 U.S.C. § 103, it is incumbent upon the
Examiner to establish a factual basis to support the legal conclusion of
obviousness. See In re Fine, 837 F.2d 1071, 1073 (Fed. Cir. 1988). In so
doing, the Examiner must make the factual determinations set forth in
Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 17-18 (1966).
If the Examiner’s burden is met, the burden then shifts to the
Appellants to overcome the prima facie case with argument and/or evidence.
Obviousness is then determined on the basis of the evidence as a whole and
the relative persuasiveness of the arguments. See In re Oetiker, 977 F.2d
1443, 1445 (Fed. Cir. 1992).

ANALYSIS
We find Powers discloses higher levels of management are notified
when the performance, related to a commitment, deteriorates (FF 2).
Appeal 2009-004701
Application 10/193,193

7
Accordingly, we find Powers teaches or suggests sending notifications when
a status of an issue has changed (i.e., the performance related to a
commitment has deteriorated).
Further, we find that Appellants’ Specification fails to provide an
explicit definition for the term “escalating.” Thus, we interpret “escalating”
to mean increasing in extent, volume, number, amount, intensity, or scope
(FF 3). Since we find Powers discloses that notifications are sent, beyond
committing agents and associated persons, to higher levels of management,
we find Powers teaches escalating notifications as both the level of
management as well as the number of people to whom the notifications are
sent is increased thereby increasing the intensity and scope of the
notifications for the committing agents and associated persons.
Accordingly, we find Powers teaches “automatically sending escalating
notifications to the at least one individual when a status of the issue has
changed within a specified time period.”

ISSUE 2
35 U.S.C. § 103(a): claims 3 and 15
Appellants argue Powers’ “time-sensitive notification” does not teach
or suggest an issue tracking system that receives follow-up information after
an issue has been resolved, as required by representative claim 3 (App. Br.
9). In contrast, Appellants contend, Powers teaches once the issue is
resolved, the process ends (id.).
The Examiner finds that Powers teaches event strings that may be
selectively presented in an interface (Ans. 9). For example, the Examiner
finds the system may issue follow-ups (i.e., further action) that allow clients
Appeal 2009-004701
Application 10/193,193

8
and/or agents to review and verify problems (id.). The Examiner therefore
finds Powers discloses a system that (1) “allows specific criteria to be set for
communication events” and (2) can be “tailored to send follow-up
information relating to a follow-up based on the ability to define the criteria
for notification” (id.).

Issue 2: Have Appellants shown the Examiner erred in finding
Powers teaches or suggests “receiving follow-up information relating to a
follow-up of the resolution and storing the resolution information in the
database” as recited in claim 3?

FURTHER FINDINGS OF FACT (FF)
We further find as follows:
Powers Reference
(4) An incoming communication event begins the process of the
commitment tracking and notification software (col. 9, l. 11-14). The event
may be a first communication regarding a new issue, or may be an ongoing
contact in an existing string (col. 9, ll. 23-27). Further, if the event is part of
an issue that has already been resolved, “it may be added on to the thread of
the resolved issue, and the old issue may be resurrected” (col. 9, ll. 26-29).

ANALYSIS
We find Powers discloses that if an event is part of an issue that has
already been resolved, it may be added on to the thread of the resolved issue,
and the old issue may be resurrected (FF 4). We further find that since the
event is added to the thread of the resolved issue, the event is necessarily
Appeal 2009-004701
Application 10/193,193

9
stored in the database (id.). Thus, we find Powers teaches or suggests
receiving follow-up information (the part of an issue that has already been
resolved) and that the follow-up information after an issue has been resolved
(i.e., the additional event that is added to the thread of an already resolved
issue) is stored in the database as recited in claim 3.

CONCLUSION
Appellants have not shown the Examiner erred in finding Powers
teaches or suggests automatically sending escalating notifications to the at
least one individual when a status of the issue has changed within a specified
time period. Thus, Appellants have not shown the Examiner erred in
concluding that claims 1, 13 and 31 are obvious over Mongilio, Powers and
Spielman. Claims 2 and 5-12 depend from representative independent claim
1 and were not argued separately; and claims 14 and 17-30 depend from
representative independent claim 13, and were also not argued separately.
Therefore, Appellants have not shown the Examiner erred in concluding that
claims 2, 5-12, 14, and 17-30 are obvious over Mongilio, Powers and
Spielman. Accordingly, Appellants have not shown the Examiner erred in
rejecting claims 1, 2-14, and 17-31 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) for obviousness
over Mongilio, Powers and Spielman.
Appellants have not shown the Examiner erred in finding Powers
teaches or suggests “receiving follow-up information relating to a follow-up
of the resolution and storing the resolution information in the database”.
Thus, Appellants have not shown the Examiner erred in concluding that
claims 3 and 15 are obvious over Mongilio and Powers. Accordingly,
Appeal 2009-004701
Application 10/193,193

10
Appellants have not shown the Examiner erred in rejecting claims 3 and 15
under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) for obviousness over Mongilio and Powers.

DECISION
The Examiner’s rejection of claims 1, 2-14, and 17-31 under 35
U.S.C. § 103(a) as being obvious over Mongilio, Powers and Spielman is
affirmed.
The Examiner’s rejection of claims 3 and 15 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a)
as being obvious over Mongilio and Powers 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)(1)(iv) (2009).

AFFIRMED

nhl

Steven S. Rubin
DICKSTEIN SHAPIRO MORIN & OSHINSKY LLP
41st Floor
1177 Avenue of the Americas
New York, NY 10036-2714