Ex Parte D et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Nov 26, 2012

10447245 (P.T.A.B. Nov. 26, 2012)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
____________________

BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
____________________

Ex parte ANTHONY P. D’ANDREA,
ROLF J. HUELSEBUSCH, ROBERT D. KEITH,
and BRUCE WALLMAN
____________________

Appeal 2011-004869
Application 10/447,245
Technology Center 3600
____________________

Before: BIBHU R. MOHANTY, MEREDITH C. PETRAVICK, and
MICHAEL W. KIM, Administrative Patent Judges.

KIM, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL

Appeal 2011-004869
Application 10/447,245

2
STATEMENT OF CASE
Appellants appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134 from a rejection of claims 1-
3, 7-10, 12, 13, and 15-171. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We REVERSE.
The claims are directed to a system and method for allocating time
among tasks in a project estimating program (Spec., para. [001]). Claim 1,
reproduced below, is illustrative of the claimed subject matter:
1. A project time estimating system, including a
computer hardware processing device comprising:
a system for determining with the computer
hardware processing device a total project time to
complete a project, wherein a plurality of tasks are
required to complete the project, and wherein each task
time is based upon an estimating factor;
a time allocation system that generates with the
computer hardware processing device at least one updated
task time for each task based on the task time and an
adjustment factor, wherein the adjustment factor is
initially set to one, wherein the time allocation system
includes an iterative algorithm that iteratively recalculates
the adjustment factor to be applied to each task, and
wherein the iterative recalculation generates a final
adjustment factor;
a system for summing with the computer hardware
processing device an actual time required to complete a
project phase and at least one of the task times or the
updated task times for each uncompleted task, and
comparing the sum to the total project time; and
an on-time analysis system for determining with the
computer hardware processing device an on-time
likelihood for completing the project based on the final
adjustment factor.

1 Our decision will make reference to the Appellants’ Appeal Brief (“App.
Br.,” filed August 12, 2010) and Reply Brief (“Reply Br.,” filed November
17, 2010), and the Examiner’s Answer (“Ans.,” mailed October 25, 2010).
Appeal 2011-004869
Application 10/447,245

3
Claims 1-3, 5-8, 10-13, and 15-17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a) as being unpatentable over Foell et al (US 7,139,720; iss. Nov. 21,
2006) in view of Lesaint (US 6,578,005 B1) in view of Official Notice and
in further view of Jalla (U.S. 6,445,968 B; iss. Sep. 3, 2002).
Claim 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable
over Foell, Lesaint, and Official Notice as applied to claims 1-3, 7, 8, 10, 12,
13, and 15-17 above, and further in view of Jalla.

ANALYSIS
We are persuaded the Examiner erred in asserting that a combination
of Foell, Lesaint, Official Notice, and Jalla renders obvious “a time
allocation system that generates with the computer hardware processing
device at least one updated task time for each task based on the task time and
an adjustment factor, wherein the adjustment factor is initially set to one,
wherein the time allocation system includes an iterative algorithm that
iteratively recalculates the adjustment factor to be applied to each task, and
wherein the iterative recalculation generates a final adjustment factor,” as
recited in independent claim 1 (App. Br. 6-11; Reply Br. 6-11). Independent
claim 8 recites a similar aspect.
As an initial matter, the Examiner has not clearly set forth which
portions of Foell or Lesaint corresponds to the recited adjustment factor
(Ans. 6-7, 20). After perusing all of the portions of Foell and Lesaint cited
by the Examiner, the closest items we are able to identify as possibly
corresponding to the recited adjustment factor are the importance score
multiplier (IMU), importance score index (IEX), and single modifying
operator (SMO) of Lesaint (Ans. 7; col. 16, ll. 3-5; col. 18, ll. 16-20). The
Appeal 2011-004869
Application 10/447,245

4
Examiner then cites various portions of Lesaint for disclosing “iteratively
recalculat[ing this] adjustment factor to… generate a final adjustment
factor,” as recited in independent claim 1 (Ans. 7, 21-22). Specifically, the
Examiner references column 4, lines 11-61 and column 15, line 4 through
column 23, line 22 of Lesaint. However, the Examiner has not adequately
shown how any of these portions iteratively optimize any of the IMU, IEX,
or SMO of Lesaint to arrive at a final adjustment factor to be applied to each
task of the schedule, as recited in independent claim 1. For example,
column 4, lines 11-61 disclose iterative optimization of the entire schedule.
However, iteratively optimizing the entire schedule does not correspond to
iteratively optimizing any of the IMU, IEX, or SMO of Lesaint to arrive at a
final adjustment factor. Column 16, lines 3-5 of Lesaint discloses “[t]he
final tours are produced by making one change at a time to the current
schedule, using a single modifying operator.” However, once again, this
portion of Lesaint does not disclose performing any iterative optimization to
arrive at the SMO, as required by independent claim 1.
For the above reasons, we also do not sustain the rejection of
independent claim 8.

DECISION
The Examiner’s rejection of claims 1-3, 7-10, 12, 13, and 15-17 is
REVERSED.

REVERSED

Klh