Ex Parte Alburey et alDownload PDFPatent Trial and Appeal BoardFeb 23, 201511442644 (P.T.A.B. Feb. 23, 2015) 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. 11/442,644 05/26/2006 Aaron D. Alburey 10022/848 9773 28164 7590 02/24/2015 BGL/Accenture - Chicago BRINKS GILSON & LIONE P O BOX 10395 CHICAGO, IL 60610 EXAMINER CHOY, PAN G ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 3624 MAIL DATE DELIVERY MODE 02/24/2015 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 AARON D. ALBUREY, RICHARD COOMBES, PETER FARRAR, JON GREEN, JEFFREY C. HAMILTON, STEVEN W. HENDRYX, CAMERON C. MCKELVEY, and CHRISTOPHER MCMANUS ____________________ Appeal 2012-008754 Application 11/442,644 Technology Center 3600 ____________________ Before MURRIEL E. CRAWFORD, BIBHU R. MOHANTY, and NINA L. MEDLOCK, Administrative Patent Judges. CRAWFORD, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL STATEMENT OF THE CASE Appellants seek our review under 35 U.S.C. § 134 of the Examiner’s final decision rejecting claims 1, 3, 5, 7, 8, 10–14, 16, 18, 20, 21, and 23–28. We have jurisdiction over the appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). We AFFIRM. Appeal 2012-008754 Application 11/442,644 2 BACKGROUND Appellants’ invention is directed to a method and system “for estimating headcounts, and more particularly headcount for a human resource service delivery model that includes business partners, centers of expertise, and human resource shared services” (Spec. ¶ 1). Claim 1 is illustrative: 1. A computer-implemented method for estimating headcounts for a company, the method comprising: receiving, by a processor, an input, wherein the input includes a number of regions in which the company operates, a number of outsourced vendors and a number of planned centers of expertise; receiving, by the processor, a user selected span of control, wherein the span of control comprises a ranking of high, medium and low options, wherein the span of control options correspond to descriptions that aid the user in determining which option to choose, the descriptions including a company size or level of technology of the company; receiving, by the processor, a metric as determined by selection of the span of control, the metric comprising a predetermined value that is used to calculate full-time equivalents of human resource personnel needed for the company, the metric varying depending on human resource roles, including a business partner, a center of expertise or a shared service center; and calculating, by the processor, full-time equivalents of human resource personnel in accordance with both the input and the metric, wherein the full-time equivalents correspond to at least one of a business partner headcount, a centers of expertise head count and a human resource shared service headcount per number of employees of a business unit of the company. Appeal 2012-008754 Application 11/442,644 3 Appellants appeal the following rejection: Claims 1, 3, 5, 7, 8, 10–14, 16, 18, 20, 21, and 23–28 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Engelking (US 2005/0049911 A1, pub. Mar. 3, 2005), Pisello (US 2003/0158800 A1, pub. Aug. 21, 2003), and Gupta (US 2005/0138419 A1, pub. June. 23, 2005). FACTUAL FINDINGS We adopt the Examiner’s findings on pages 4–8 and pages 13–18 of the Answer as our own. ANALYSIS Independent claim 1 and dependent claims 3, 5, 7, 8, 10–13, and 27 We are not persuaded of error on the part of the Examiner by Appellants’ argument that a combination of Engelking, Pisello, and Gupta fails to disclose or suggest the subject matter of claim 1 because Pisello and Gupta fail to disclose or suggest receiving a metric as determined by selection of the span of control, the metric comprising a predetermined value that is used to calculate full-time equivalents of human resource personnel needed for the company, the metric varying depending on human resource roles, including a business partner, a center of expertise or a shared service center (App. Br. 4–5; Reply Br. 2–3). Claim 1 is rejected as obvious over the combination of Engelking, Pisello, and Gupta, and not over any one of them alone. Nonobviousness cannot be established by attacking the references individually where, as here, the rejection is based on the teachings of a Appeal 2012-008754 Application 11/442,644 4 combination of references. See In re Merck & Co., Inc., 800 F.2d 1091, 1097 (Fed. Cir. 1986). In rejecting claim 1, the Examiner relies on Engelking as disclosing a “metric comprising a predetermined value that is used to calculate full-time equivalents of human resource personnel needed for the company” (Ans. 14–15; citing Engelking ¶¶ 79 and 81–83. The Examiner also relies on Engelking at paragraph 82 to disclose a “span of control,” but turns to Pisello, at paragraphs 67, 71, and 76 to disclose “a metric as determined by selection of the span of control” (id. at 6 and 16–17). To address the remaining aspects of claim 1, the Examiner relies on Gupta, at paragraphs 15 and 23, to disclose varying Engelking’s metric, based on different roles (id. at 17–18). Thus, Appellants’ argument regarding the disclosures of Pisello and Gupta, alone, is not persuasive to show Examiner error. Equally unpersuasive is Appellants’ argument that Engelking does not disclose “a metric as determined by a span of control” (App. Br. 5; Reply Br. 2–3). Again, claim 1 is rejected as obvious over the combination of Engelking, Pisello, and Gupta, not over Engelking alone (Ans. 4–8). Here, as discussed above, the Examiner relies on Pisello to the extent it discloses a metric determined by a user-selected span of control comprising “a ranking of high, medium and low options” (id. at 5–6 and 13–16; citing Pisello ¶¶ 67, 71, and 76), but relies on Engelking to disclose that the metric comprises “a predetermined value that is used to calculate full-time equivalents of human resource personnel needed for the company” and “span of control” (id. at 14–18; citing Engelking ¶¶ 79–83). Thus, Appeal 2012-008754 Application 11/442,644 5 Appellants’ argument regarding Engelking’s disclosure, alone, is not persuasive to show Examiner error. See Merck, 800 F.2d at 1097. We also are not persuaded of error on the part of the Examiner by Appellants’ argument that Engelking fails to disclose a “span of control.” At the outset, we agree with the Examiner that the term “span of control” is a ratio of the number of employees that a business partner head can support (see Ans. 13–14; citing Spec. ¶ 29 and Tables 1 and 5). In this regard, we agree with the Examiner that the “span of control,” as recited by claim 1, when construed as broadly as reasonable, reads on the “ratio of employees per HR FTE (full-time equivalents)” disclosed in Engelking, which is used to estimate the required FTE of resources Ans. 15, citing Engelking ¶¶ 60 and 81–83. Thus, Appellants’ argument is not persuasive to show Examiner error. In view of the foregoing, we sustain the Examiner’s rejection of independent claim 1. We also sustain the Examiner’s rejection of claims 3, 5, 7, 8, 10–13, and 27 because Appellants have not argued the separate patentability of these dependent claims (see App. Br. 4–5). Independent claim 14, and dependent claims 16, 18, 20, 21, 23–26, and 28 Appellants argue that independent claim 14 is allowable for the same reasons set forth with respect to claim 1 (App. Br. 5–6; Reply Br. 3). We are not persuaded for the reasons set forth above that the Examiner erred in rejecting claim 1 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a). Therefore, we sustain the Examiner’s rejection of independent claim 14, and dependent claims 16, 18, 20, 21, 23–26, and 28, for the same reasons. Appeal 2012-008754 Application 11/442,644 6 DECISION The Examiner’s rejection of claims 1, 3, 5, 7, 8, 10–14, 16, 18, 20, 21, and 23–28 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) 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 Copy with citationCopy as parenthetical citation