Jostle Corporation

Patent Trials and Appeals Board

Apr 1, 2021

2019005757 (P.T.A.B. Apr. 1, 2021)

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.
14/090,516 11/26/2013 Bradley James Francis Palmer JSTL-00101 1024
34209 7590 04/01/2021
WESTBERG LAW OFFICES
569 Clyde Ave. Ste. 530
Mountain View, CA 94043
EXAMINER
MORRISON, JAY A
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2198
MAIL DATE DELIVERY MODE
04/01/2021 PAPER
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.
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte BRADLEY JAMES FRANCIS PALMER
and ALEXANDER SZIBBO
Appeal 2019-005757
Application 14/090,516
Technology Center 2100

Before JEAN R. HOMERE, MICHAEL J. STRAUSS, and
DAVID J. CUTITTA II, Administrative Patent Judges.

CUTITTA, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL

STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 134(a), Appellant1 appeals from the
Examiner’s decision to reject claims 38–46, 51–61, 66, and 67, all the claims
under consideration.2 We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We AFFIRM.

1 We use the word “Appellant” to refer to “applicant” as defined in 37
C.F.R. § 1.42(a). Appellant identifies the real party in interest as Jostle
Corporation. Appeal Brief filed December 11, 2018 (“Appeal Br.”) 2.
2 Claims 47–50 and 62–65 are cancelled. Appeal Br. 35, 38.
Appeal 2019-005757
Application 14/090,516

2
CLAIMED SUBJECT MATTER
Summary
Appellant’s claimed subject matter relates to “generating a
representation of a structure of an organization of humans,” such as an
organization chart of a company. Appeal Br. 33. According to Appellant,
data defining a plurality of organizational relationships between
organizational roles to be undertaken by members of the organization is used
to generate the representation of the structure of the organization.
Spec. ¶¶ 58–61, 67–69, Fig. 8.3 Then, information pertaining to the
organization structure is automatically pushed to devices of a subset of the
users selected according to their organizational roles in the structure, where
the mode of communication for each user of the subset is pre-selected by
each user of the subset. Id. ¶¶ 70.6–70.8.
Exemplary Claims
Claims 38, 39, 40, and 41, reproduced below, exemplify the claimed
subject matter:
38. A method of generating a representation of a
structure of an organization of humans and using the structure
to communicate information, the method comprising:
receiving data from a plurality of users, the data defining
a plurality of organizational relationships between
organizational roles to be undertaken by members of the
organization, said receiving including at least receiving data
from a first user defining a first organizational relationship
between organizational roles and receiving data from a second

3 In addition to the Appeal Brief noted above, we refer to: (1) the originally
filed Specification filed November 26, 2013 and the amended Specification
filed March 11, 2015 (“Spec.”); (2) the Final Office Action mailed June 25,
2018 (“Final Act.”); (3) the Examiner’s Answer mailed May 29, 2019
(“Ans.”); and (4) the Reply Brief filed July 24, 2019 (“Reply Br.”).
Appeal 2019-005757
Application 14/090,516

3
user defining a second organizational relationship between
organizational roles, wherein the data is received at a computer
server from a plurality of network devices coupled to the
computer server via a network, and wherein at least one of the
organizational roles is common to both the first and second
organizational relationships, and wherein at least some of the
plurality of organizational relationships are hierarchical;
generating a structure of the organization using a
database engine of the computer server, the structure being
generated from the data defining the plurality of organizational
relationships, and the structure having a plurality of connected
nodes, wherein organizational roles are represented by nodes
and relationships between these nodes are represented by
connections between these nodes wherein the structure of the
organization is stored at the server; and
communicating information pertaining to the
organization to a subset of the users selected according to their
organizational roles in the structure by using the database
engine of the computer server to automatically push the
information to devices of the subset of the users using a mode
of communication for each user of the subset, wherein the mode
of communication for each user of the subset is pre-selected by
each of the users of the subset, and said information being
communicated to the subset of the users from the server via the
network.
39. The method according to claim 38, wherein said
communicating information comprises sending an e-mail
message to one or more of the subset of the users.
40. The method according to claim 38, wherein said
communicating information comprises sending a text message
to one or more of the subset of the users.
41. The method according to claim 38, wherein said
communicating information comprises posting a notice of the
information.
Appeal Br. 33–34 (Claims App.).
Appeal 2019-005757
Application 14/090,516

4
REFERENCES
The Examiner relies on the following prior art references:4
Name Reference Date
Morinville US 2002/0062240 A1 May 23, 2002
Dion US 2008/0040193 A1 Feb. 14, 2008
Arbajian US 2009/0030709 A1 Jan. 29, 2009
Luzardo US 2009/0112678 A1 Apr. 30, 2009
Cheung US 7,729,688 B2 June 1, 2010

REJECTIONS
The Examiner makes the following rejections:5
Claims
Rejected 35 U.S.C. § References
Final Act.
38–40, 46,
52–55, 61, 67
103(a) Arbajian, Morinville,
Luzardo, Cheung
7
41–45, 51, 56–
60, 66
103(a) Arbajian, Morinville,
Luzardo, Cheung,
Dion
13

OPINION
We review the appealed rejections for error based upon the issues
identified by Appellant and in light of Appellant’s arguments and evidence.
Ex parte Frye, 94 USPQ2d 1072, 1075 (BPAI 2010) (precedential).
Arguments not made are waived. See 37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(1)(iv) (2019).
We disagree with Appellant that the Examiner errs and adopt as our own the
findings and reasons set forth by the Examiner to the extent consistent with
our analysis herein. Final Act. 7–23; Ans. 3–31. We add the following
discussion primarily for emphasis.

4 All citations to the references use the first-named inventor or author only.
5 The Examiner withdraws the rejection under 35 U.S.C. § 101. Ans. 3.
Appeal 2019-005757
Application 14/090,516

5
Obviousness Rejection of Independent Claim 38
“generating a structure of the organization”
The Examiner relies on the combination of Arbajian and Morinville to
teach or suggest, “receiving data from a plurality of users, the data defining a
plurality of organizational relationships between organizational roles to be
undertaken by members of the organization” and “generating a structure of
the organization . . . the structure being generated from the data defining the
plurality of organizational relationships,” as recited in claim 38. Final
Act. 7–10 (citing Arbajian ¶¶ 15–18, Morinville ¶¶ 6, 48, 49); Ans. 3–5.
Appellant argues that “Arbajian and Morinville do not generate a
structure of the organization from information received from a plurality of
members of the organization” because “neither of these references, taken
singly or in combination, suggests that two different users would contribute
data to the same data structure.” Appeal Br. 19–20.
The Examiner disagrees with Appellant’s argument, finding:
Morinville teaches the claimed “first user” inputting data as
administrators that perform changes when employees are hired,
promoted, transferred, or leave the company (Morinville,
paragraph [0006], where it is noted that administrators are plural
and could also read on the claimed “second user”), and also
teaches positions in an organizational structure (Morinville,
paragraph [0048]). Further, Arbajian teaches the claimed
“second user” inputting data as inputting a list of individuals
from an organization, where the list may be inputted in any
manner (Arbajian, paragraph [0015]) as well as a master
organizational hierarchy maintained by the organization
(Arbajian, paragraph [0016]), and it would be obvious that
inputting a list of individuals in any manner could be broadly
interpreted as the list being input by a user.
Ans. 4–5 (citing Arbajian ¶¶ 15, 16, Morinville ¶¶ 6, 48).
Appeal 2019-005757
Application 14/090,516

6
Appellant fails to show reversible error in the Examiner’s rejection
based on the combined teachings of Arbajian and Morinville. The Examiner
correctly finds that Arbajian’s generation of an organization structure with
sub-hierarchy generation system 18, based on an input list 30 of individuals
from an organization teaches the limitation at issue because Arbajian
discloses list 30 “may be inputted in any manner” including by users or
administrators, as taught by Morinville. Ans. 5 (citing Arbajian ¶ 15). The
Examiner relies on Morinville’s discussion of administrators inputting
organizational relationship data to teach or suggest a first and second user
inputting data defining a plurality of organizational relationships between
organizational roles to be undertaken by members of the organization.
Ans. 5 (citing Morinville ¶¶ 6, 48. Appellant fails to persuasively explain
why Morinville’s multiple administrators inputting organizational
relationship data fails to teach or suggest a first and second user, as claimed.
Appellant next argues that “claim 38 requires that a hierarchical data
structure is generated from relationship data received from the plurality of
users” but “the portions of Arbijian [sic] that are relied upon assume that a
‘master organizational hierarchy’ is already available because it is
‘maintained by the organization in a database.’” Appeal Br. 21 (citing
Arbajian ¶ 16).
The Examiner responds by finding that:
Arbajian discloses that a master organizational hierarchy is
maintained by the organization in a database (paragraph [0016])
and it is noted that such maintaining of a hierarchy means that
changes such as hiring, promotion, transfers, or leaving the
company (see Morinville, paragraph [0006], that teaches these
types of organizational changes) will necessitate that the
hierarchy is maintained to reflect such changes. Such changes,
Appeal 2019-005757
Application 14/090,516

7
perhaps dating back to the beginning of a corporation, reflect the
claimed generation of a hierarchical data structure as claimed. It
is respectfully submitted that one of ordinary skill in the art
would know that the argument regarding the claimed
“hierarchical data structure being generated from relationship
data received from a plurality of users” (appellant arguments,
page 21) could be generated through the accumulation of such
data over time, input by administrators when personnel changes
happen (as shown in Morinville, paragraph [0006]) into a master
organizational hierarchy (as shown in Arbajian, paragraph
[0016]) and that therefore the argued limitations are taught by a
combination of the Arbajian and Morinville references.
Ans. 6–7.
Appellant’s argument is predicated on the assertion that Arbajian’s
master organizational hierarchy, as maintained in the database, must remain
fixed and unchanging. Appellant, however, provides no evidence from
Arbajian to support this assertion. This argument also fails to address the
Examiner’s finding that organizational hierarchies regularly incur “changes
such as hiring, promotion, transfers, or leaving the company” and that such
changes date back to the beginning of corporations. Ans. 7 (citing
Morinville ¶ 6).
We find Appellant’s argument unpersuasive because we agree with
the Examiner that one skilled in the art would have understood in view of
the combined teachings of Arbajian and Morinville that organizational
hierarchies are dynamic rather than static and therefore Arbajian’s master
organizational hierarchy does not preclude occasional updating to reflect
organizational changes.

Appeal 2019-005757
Application 14/090,516

8
“automatically push the information to devices”
The Examiner relies on the combination of Arbajian, Morinville,
Luzardo, and Cheung to teach or suggest, “automatically push the
information to devices of the subset of the users using a mode of
communication for each user of the subset,” as recited in claim 38. Final
Act. 10–12. Specifically, the Examiner finds Luzardo discloses “push
information to a user based on their job title, role, or team.” Final Act. 11
(citing Luzardo ¶ 162).
Appellant argues for the first time in the Reply that Luzardo does not
teach the “important inventive concept of generating a structure of the
organization from data received from users that defines the plurality of
organizational relationships and using that same structure of the organization
to then communicate information pertaining the organization to a subset of
the users.” Reply Br. 3–4 (citing Luzardo¶ 162).
We decline to consider this argument raised for the first time in the
Reply Brief. “Any arguments or authorities not included in the appeal brief
will be refused consideration by the Board for purposes of the present
appeal.” 37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(1)(iv). Moreover, “[a]ny argument raised in
the reply brief which was not raised in the appeal brief, or is not responsive
to an argument raised in the examiner’s answer, . . . will not be considered
by the Board for purposes of the present appeal, unless good cause is
shown.” 37 C.F.R. § 41.41(b)(2). Here, the Final Office Action reasonably
articulated the obviousness rejection based on the combined teachings of the
references, including Luzardo. Final Act. 10–12. Appellant has not shown
good cause for introducing the argument for the first time in the Reply Brief.
Furthermore, even if considered, this argument is unpersuasive because
Appeal 2019-005757
Application 14/090,516

9
Appellant argues Luzardo alone while the Examiner relies on the combined
teachings of Arbajian, Morinville, Luzardo, and Cheung to teach the claimed
selecting. Final Act. 10–12.
motivation to combine the teachings of the references
The Examiner determines there was sufficient motivation to combine
the teachings of the references, stating that:
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at
the time the invention was made to combine Arbajian and
Morinville because using the steps claimed would have given
those skilled in the art the tools to improve the invention by
identify functional approvers like Finance or HR employees who
are not directly above the requester in an organization
(Morinville, paragraph [0014]. This gives the user the advantage
of management of important organizational information.
Final Act. 10.
According to Appellant, “[t]his alleged motivation pertains to
identification of individuals to sign or approve a document as part of
Morinville’s signature looping process. As such . . . this alleged motivation
is not pertinent to the alleged combination in which multiple different users
would contribute data to the same data structure.” Appeal Br. 20.
The Examiner responds by noting that “Morinville suggests other
motivations for modifying the invention such as efficiently controlling the
way people, resources and information technology interact in an
organization (Morinville, paragraph [0003]) or automating the change of
business processes in a large organization (Morinville, paragraph [0008]).”
Ans. 6.
We agree with the Examiner that the combination of Morinville and
Arbajian teaches or suggests generating an organization structure using
Appeal 2019-005757
Application 14/090,516

10
organizational data input by multiple administrators. Final Act. 7–10.
Appellant’s argument is unpersuasive because Appellant fails to demonstrate
that such a structure negates the motivation relied on by the Examiner. That
is, even in a hierarchical structure in which more than one individual inputs
data defining organizational relationships, there is still a need to identify
individuals within the hierarchy responsible for signing or approving
particular documents. Appellant also fails to respond to the additional
motivations provided by the Examiner in the Answer. Ans. 6.
For the reasons discussed, Appellant has not persuaded us of error in
the Examiner’s obviousness rejection of independent claim 38. We,
therefore, sustain the Examiner’s rejection of that claim, as well as the
rejections of independent claim 53, which Appellant does not argue
separately with particularity. Appeal Br. 23.
Obviousness Rejection of Dependent Claim 39
The Examiner relies on Arbajian to teach or suggest that
“communicating [of] information comprises sending an e-mail message to
one or more of the subset of the users,” as recited in claim 39. Final Act. 12
(citing Arbajian ¶ 32); Ans. 8.
Appellant argues that “Arbajian refers to viewing roles and positions
individuals who were copied on an email, whereas, claim 39 refers to
sending an email message to a subset of the users who were, according to
claim 38, selected according to their organizational roles in the structure.
The difference is that Arbajian does not disclose sending an email message
to a subset of the users who were selected according to their organizational
roles in the structure.” Appeal Br. 23.

Appeal 2019-005757
Application 14/090,516

11
The Examiner responds by finding that:
the claim is directed to sending an e-mail to one or more of the
subset of users, and Arbajian teaches that an individual in the
organization was copied on an email and that the “outputted sub-
hierarchy 32 identifies each individual's respective role”
(Arbajian, paragraph [0032]), and it is respectfully submitted that
being copied on an email is still being sent an email, and that the
subhierarchy in Arbajian is equivalent to a subset of users as
claimed. With respect to the appellant argument that parent
claim 38 teaches “selected according to their organizational roles
in the structure” (Appellant argument, page 23), it is respectfully
submitted that Luzardo teaches that limitation as shown
previously. Therefore these arguments are not convincing.
Ans. 8. We agree with the Examiner’s finding that Arbajian teaches or
suggests sending an e-mail message to a subset of users, as recited in claim
39. Appellant’s argument that claim 38, from which claim 39 depends,
requires that the users are “selected according to their organizational roles in
the structure” (Appeal Br. 11) is unpersuasive because Appellant argues
Arbajian alone while the Examiner relies on the combined teachings of
Luzardo and Arbajian to teach the claimed selecting (Ans. 8).
We, therefore, sustain the Examiner’s obviousness rejection of
dependent claim 39 and of claim 54, which Appellant does not argue
separately with particularity. Appeal Br. 25.
Obviousness Rejection of Dependent Claim 40
The Examiner relies on Arbajian to teach or suggest that
“communicating [of] information comprises sending a text message to one
or more of the subset of the users,” as recited in claim 40. Final Act. 12
(citing Arbajian ¶ 32).
Appeal 2019-005757
Application 14/090,516

12
Appellant argues that the “cited paragraph of Arbajian does not
disclose the use of text messages at all.” Appeal Br. 24.
The Examiner responds by finding that “the e-mails sent by Arbajian
. . . typically contain text and therefore one or ordinary skill in the art could
interpret these messages as text messages.” Ans. 9 (citing Arbajian ¶ 32).
Appellant does not respond to the Examiner’s additional finding in the
Answer. Moreover, we see no reversible error in the Examiner’s finding
that Arbajian’s electronic messages including text teach or suggest text
messages, as recited in claim 40. Id.
We, therefore, sustain the Examiner’s obviousness rejection of
dependent claim 40 and of claim 55, which Appellant does not argue
separately with particularity. Appeal Br. 25–26.
Obviousness Rejection of Dependent Claim 46
The Examiner relies on Arbajian to teach or suggest “communicating
selected information to all of the users having organizational roles in the
structure,” as recited in claim 46. Final Act. 12 (citing Arbajian ¶ 32).
Appellant argues that the “cited paragraph of Arbajian discusses
displaying ‘each individual’s respective role’ and ‘the relationship amongst
the various individuals’ in the sub-hierarchy. It does not disclose
communicating selected information to all of the users in the master
hierarchy or in the sub-hierarchy.” Appeal Br. 24.
The Examiner responds by finding that “one of ordinary skill in the art
could interpret the Arbajian reference’s e-mail as directed to the entire
subhierarchy of all users having organizational roles in the structure.
Further, in support of this interpretation, Luzardo teaching pushing
Appeal 2019-005757
Application 14/090,516

13
information to a user based on their role or team.” Ans. 9 (citing Arbajian
¶ 32).
Appellant does not respond to the Examiner’s additional findings in
the Answer based on Arbajian and Luzardo. Moreover, we see no reversible
error in the Examiner’s finding that the combination of Arbajian and
Luzardo teaches or suggests communications directed to the entire
subhierarchy of users having organizational roles in the structure. Id.
We, therefore, sustain the Examiner’s obviousness rejection of
dependent claim 46 and of claim 61, which Appellant does not argue
separately with particularity. Appeal Br. 26.
Obviousness Rejection of Dependent Claim 52
The Examiner relies on Arbajian and Morinville to teach or suggest
“incrementally receiving data defining organizational relationships and
incrementally updating the structure of the organization in response to the
incrementally received data,” as recited in claim 52. Final Act. 12 (citing
Morinville ¶¶ 6, 48, 49).
Appellant argues that “Paragraph [0006] of Morinville discusses
making changes manually to business processes and software applications
that are affected when an employee is hired, promoted, transferred or leaves.
This does not disclose making changes to a hierarchical data structure.”
Appeal Br. 25.
The Examiner responds by finding that “Morinville teaches that
changes have to be made when employees are hired, promoted, transferred,
or leave a company” and “these changes represent incremental changes to
the personnel and organizational relationships at the company.” Ans. 9–10
(citing Morinville ¶ 6). The Examiner finds Arbajian teaches or suggests an
Appeal 2019-005757
Application 14/090,516

14
“organizational hierarchy is maintained by the organization . . . and that this
maintaining would include the changes necessitated by employees being
hired, etc., as taught by Morinville.” Ans. 10 (citing Arbajian ¶ 16).
We see no reversible error in the Examiner’s finding that receiving
organizational change data from administrators when an employee is hired,
promoted, transferred or leaves, as discussed in Morinville, in view of
Arbajian’s discussion of the organization maintaining an organizational
hierarchy, teaches incrementally receiving data defining organizational
relationships and using the data to update the organizational hierarchy, as
claimed. Appellant’s argument based on Morinville alone, does not address
the Examiner’s reliance on the combined teaching of Morinville and
Arbajian. We, therefore, sustain the Examiner’s obviousness rejection of
dependent claim 52.
Obviousness Rejection of Dependent Claim 41
The Examiner relies on Dion to teach or suggest “wherein said
communicating information comprises posting a notice of the information,”
as recited in claim 41. Final Act. 14 (citing Dion ¶ 18).
Appellant argues that “[t]he cited portion of Dion discusses sending
email messages. It does not disclose the posting of notices.” Appeal Br. 26.
The Examiner responds by finding that “Dion teaches a notification
engine with direct messaging notification” and determining “that it would be
obvious to one of skill in the art that this is equivalent to posting a notice of
the information as claimed and therefore the argument is not convincing.”
Ans. 10 (citing Dion ¶ 18).
“The question under [35 U.S.C. § 103] is not merely what the
references expressly teach but what they would have suggested to one of
Appeal 2019-005757
Application 14/090,516

15
ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made.” Merck & Co. v.
Biocraft Laboratories, Inc., 874 F.2d 804, 807 (Fed. Cir. 1989) (emphasis
added) (quoting In re Lamberti, 545 F.2d 747, 750 (Fed. Cir. 1976); see also
MPEP § 2123. We agree with the Examiner’s finding that Dion’s direct
messaging notification teaches or at least suggests “posting a notice of the
information,” as recited in claim 41. We, therefore, sustain the Examiner’s
obviousness rejection of dependent claim 41.
Obviousness Rejection of Dependent Claim 42
The Examiner relies on Dion to teach or suggest “wherein the notice
of the information is posted in association with a visual representation of one
or more of the organizational roles,” as recited in claim 42. Final Act. 14
(citing Dion ¶ 22, Fig. 6).
Appellant argues that “[t]he cited paragraph of Dion discusses display
of a ‘staff bid interface screen.’ This is unrelated to the Applicant’s claimed
invention.” Appeal Br. 27.
The Examiner responds by finding that Dion teaches “a dashboard for
staff where alerts can be displayed” and “the alerts are equivalent to the
claimed information posted, and the dashboard for the staff is equivalent to
visual representation of organization roles,” as recited in claim 41. Ans. 10–
11 (citing Dion ¶ 22).
Appellant’s argument regarding Dion is unpersuasive. Appeal Br. 27.
Such a conclusory statement, amounting to little more than a paraphrasing of
the claim language, a single sentence summary of Dion, and a general
denial, is unpersuasive to rebut the Examiner’s findings. Cf. 37 C.F.R. §
41.37(c)(iv) (“A statement which merely points out what a claim recites will
not be considered an argument for separate patentability of the claim.”); see
Appeal 2019-005757
Application 14/090,516

16
also In re Lovin, 652 F.3d 1349, 1357 (Fed. Cir. 2011) (“[W]e hold that the
Board reasonably interpreted Rule 41.37 to require more substantive
arguments in an appeal brief than a mere recitation of the claim elements and
a naked assertion that the corresponding elements were not found in the
prior art.”). Moreover, Appellant does not respond to the Examiner’s
findings in the Answer based on Dion. Ans. 10–11. We, therefore, sustain
the Examiner’s obviousness rejection of dependent claim 42.
Obviousness Rejection of Dependent Claim 43
The Examiner relies on Dion to teach or suggest “wherein the notice
of the information for a particular role in the organization is made accessible
by users according to a user attribute,” as recited in claim 43. Final Act. 14
(citing Dion ¶¶ 18, 22, Fig. 6).
Appellant argues that Dion “does not disclose that a notice of
information for a particular role in the organization is made accessible by
users according to a user attribute, but instead discloses features related to
staff bidding, including sending requests for bids, matching of qualified
employees, and identifying qualified candidates for open shifts.” Appeal
Br. 28.
The Examiner responds by finding that:
Dion discloses a personal dashboard that displays information
for staff including their status, skills, credentials, and other
information related to the organization itself such as
departmental status (Dion, paragraph [0022]). It is submitted
that this is equivalent to making information for a particular role
within the hierarchical structure available to users according to
an attribute because Dion discloses a dashboard with user
information related to the organization based on them being a
Appeal 2019-005757
Application 14/090,516

17
staff member, where the staff member and credentials can be
considered a user attribute for a role within an organization.”
Ans. 12 (citing Dion ¶ 22).
We see no reversible error in the Examiner’s finding that Dion’s
dashboard with user information related to the organization and the staff
member’s credentials teaches or suggests the limitation at issue. We,
therefore, sustain the Examiner’s obviousness rejection of dependent claim
43.
Obviousness Rejection of Dependent Claim 44
The Examiner relies on Dion to teach or suggest “wherein the user
attribute comprises a user type,” as recited in claim 44. Final Act. 16 (citing
Dion ¶¶ 18, 22, Fig. 6).
Appellant argues that Dion “does not disclose that a notice of
information for a particular role in the organization is made accessible by
users according to a user attribute, but instead discloses features related to
staff bidding, including sending requests for bids, matching of qualified
employees, and identifying qualified candidates for open shifts.” Appeal
Br. 29.
The Examiner responds by finding that “Dion teaches that that staff
display area may include licenses, skills, and certifications . . . and it is
submitted that these attributes of a staff member could be considered a type
of user.” Ans. 12 (citing Dion ¶ 22).
Appellant fails to specifically respond to the Examiner’s finding that
the “attributes of a staff member could be considered a type of user.”
Ans. 12. Appellant, therefore, demonstrates no reversible error in the
Appeal 2019-005757
Application 14/090,516

18
Examiner’s findings and we sustain the Examiner’s obviousness rejection of
dependent claim 44.
Obviousness Rejection of Dependent Claim 45
The Examiner relies on Dion to teach or suggest “wherein the notice
of the information conveys a current status, activity or interest of a person
having a particular role in the organization,” as recited in claim 45. Final
Act. 16 (citing Dion ¶ 22, Fig. 6).
Appellant argues that “in reviewing the cited paragraph [0022] which
spans nearly 50 lines of text, it is not clear how this text specifically
discloses applicants claim language. The cited paragraph and figure of Dion
discloses displaying ‘dynamic staff interface screen’” and “does not appear
to disclose all of the limitations of claim 45.” Appeal Br. 30.
The Examiner responds by finding that “Dion teaches that staff
display area may include licenses, skills, certifications, and monitoring and
verifying such information” and “this information may be broadly
interpreted as conveying the current status of a person since monitoring and
verifying of licenses, skills, and/or certifications means that the status of
such information must be current as required by the claim language.”
Ans. 12 (citing Dion ¶ 22).
Appellant demonstrates no reversible error in the Examiner’s finding
that Dion’s dashboard with user information including a staff member’s
licenses, skills, and certifications, teaches or suggests “the information
conveys a current status,” as claimed. We, therefore, sustain the Examiner’s
obviousness rejection of dependent claim 45.
Appeal 2019-005757
Application 14/090,516

19
Obviousness Rejection of Dependent Claim 51
The Examiner relies on Dion to teach or suggest “receiving
information from a user and posting a notice of the information on a
message board or posting field associated with the organizational role of the
user,” as recited in claim 51. Final Act. 16 (citing Dion ¶ 22, Fig. 6).
Appellant argues that “Dion does not disclose receiving information
from a user and posting a notice of the information on a message board or
posting field associated with the organizational role of that same user.”
Appeal Br. 30.
The Examiner responds by finding that “Dion teaches a staff display
area may include licenses, skills, certifications, and monitoring and verifying
such information” and “this information is displayed in fields on a dashboard
and may be broadly interpreted as information received from a user since
licenses, skills, and/or certifications is information related a user and the
status is equivalent to a notice of the information.” Ans. 13 (citing Dion
¶ 22).
Appellant demonstrates no reversible error in the Examiner’s finding
that Dion’s dashboard with user information including a staff member’s self-
input licenses, skills, and certifications, teaches or suggests “receiving
information from a user and posting a notice of the information . . .
associated with the organizational role of the user,” as claimed. See Dior
¶ 22 (discussing dashboard 166 with personal home including competencies
area “for viewing and interacting with licenses, certifications, and skills.”).
We, therefore, sustain the Examiner’s obviousness rejection of dependent
claim 51, and of claim 66, which Appellant does not argue separately with
particularity. Appeal Br. 31.
Appeal 2019-005757
Application 14/090,516

20
CONCLUSION
For the reasons discussed, Appellant has not persuaded us of error in
the Examiner’s obviousness rejections of independent claim 38 and of
dependent claims 39, 40, 46, 52, 41, 42, 43, 44, 45 and 51. We, therefore,
sustain the Examiner’s rejection of these claims, as well as the rejections of
independent claims 53 and dependent claims 54–61, 66, and 67, which
Appellant does not argue separately with particularity. Appeal Br. 25–31.
Accordingly, we affirm the Examiner’s decision to reject claims 38–46, 51–
61, 66, and 67 under 35 U.S.C. § 103.
DECISION SUMMARY
In summary:
Claim(s)
Rejected
35
U.S.C. §
References Affirmed Reversed
38–40,
46, 52–
55, 61, 67
103(a) Arbajian, Morinville,
Luzardo, Cheung
38–40, 46,
52–55, 61,
67

41–45,
51, 56–
60, 66
103(a) Arbajian, Morinville,
Luzardo, Cheung, Dion
41–45, 51,
56–60, 66

Overall
Outcome
38–46, 51–
61, 66, 67

TIME PERIOD FOR RESPONSE
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