Ex Parte Kline et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Mar 21, 2016

11185225 (P.T.A.B. Mar. 21, 2016)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE
111185,225 07/19/2005
85851 7590 03/23/2016
Schwegman Lundberg & Woessner I Raytheon
P.O. Box 2938
Minneapolis, MN 55402
FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
Warren J. Kline
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
ATTORNEY DOCKET NO. CONFIRMATION NO.
1547.222US1 2546
EXAMINER
YOUNG, ASHLEY YA-SHEH
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
3623
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
03/23/2016 ELECTRONIC
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.
Notice of the Office communication was sent electronically on above-indicated "Notification Date" to the
following e-mail address( es):
uspto@slwip.com
SLW@blackhillsip.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte WARREN J. KLINE, DIANE M. MCCREA, LORA J. CLARK,
CHARISSE A. MCLORREN, JEAN M. HAGAR, and
DARRELL K. HENSON
Appeal2013-006761
Application 11/185,2251
Technology Center 3600
Before, JOSEPH A. FISCHETTI, BIBHU R. MOHANTY, and
MICHAEL W. KIM, Administrative Patent Judges.
FISCHETTI, 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 rejection of claims 1-3, 6-12, and 15-20. We have jurisdiction under
35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
Claim 2, reproduced below, is representative of the subject matter on
appeal.
1 Appellants identify Raytheon Co. as the real party in interest. Br. 2X.
Appeal2013-006761
Application 11/185,225
2. A method of evaluating schedule data, comprising:
using at least one computing device to parse through raw
schedule data and sort the raw schedule data into a grouping of
records associated with a previously generated schedule plan,
the grouping associated with a measurable parameter;
using the at least one computing device to calculate at
least one reportable parameter indicative of the quality of the
previously generated schedule plan; and
performing a qualitative assessment of the previously
generated schedule plan based upon the calculation of the at
least one reportable parameter;
wherein performing the qualitative assessment comprises
comparing the at least one reportable parameter to at least one
corresponding threshold value, the at least one corresponding
threshold value determined using an average of an analysis of
the measurable parameter for each schedule in a plurality of
schedules, the plurality of schedules selected based on a desired
quality level and associated with records in the raw schedule
data.
THE REJECTION
The Examiner relies upon the following as evidence of
unpatentability:
Chua
Klett
US 2005/0154625 Al
US 2006/0026052 Al
July 14, 2005
Feb.2,2006
Winter, Checks and Balances: Baseling Schedule Review, 2002
Primavera Users Conference.
DeBusk, Components and relative weights in utilization of dashboard
measurement systems like the Balanced Scorecard, The British Accounting
Review 35, 2003.
2
Appeal2013-006761
Application 11/185,225
The following rejections are before us for review. 2
Claim 1 is rejected under 35 U.S.C.§ 103(a) as unpalatable over
Winter, Chua, and Klett.
Claims 2, 7, 8, 11, 16, 17, and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a) as unpalatable over Winter and Klett.
Claims 3 and 12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpalatable
over Winter, Official Notice, and Klett.
Claims 6 and 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpalatable
over Winter, Klett, and DeBusk.
Claims 9, 10, 18, and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
unpalatable over Winter, Klett, and Official Notice.
ANALYSIS
35 U.S.C. § 103 REJECTIONS
Each of independent claims 1, 2, 11, and 20 requires, in one form or
another:
comparing the at least one reportable parameter to at least one
corresponding threshold value, the at least one corresponding
threshold value determined using an average of an analysis of
the measurable parameter for each schedule in a plurality of
schedules, the plurality of schedules selected based on a desired
2 Should there be further prosecution of this application, the Examiner may
wish to consider reviewing the claims for compliance under 35 U.S.C. § 101
in light of the most recent Office guidance on § 101 found in "2014 Interim
Guidance on Patent Subject Matter Eligibility," 79 Fed. Reg. 74618 (Dec.
16, 2014), which supplements the "Preliminary Examination Instructions in
view of the Supreme Court Decision in Alice Corporation Pty. Ltd. v. CLS
Bank International, et al.," Memorandum to the Examining Corps, June 25,
2014.
3
Appeal2013-006761
Application 11/185,225
quality level and associated with records in the raw schedule
data.
The Examiner found concerning this limitation that Winter discloses
this limitation at:
(pg. 9, lines 27-30 which describes comparing "longest acts and
ask if they are within spec limits" and the utilization of a
"histogram of numbers of acts and their durations as a way to
see distribution as well as just numbers . . . Many contracts
specify the minimum or maximum allowable durations of
activities included in the schedule"; and pg. 9, lines 14-18
which further describes specifications of critical or near-critical
activities of the Baseline Schedule with typical or predefined
limits based on known quality levels); ....
(Answer 3).
The Appellants argue that Winter:
indicates nothing more than an analysis of a contract's
requirements or some industry standard metrics can occur. The
Examiner asserted that the "contracts specify" the minimum
and maximum activity durations or the Baseline Schedule has
"typical" or "predefined limits based on known quality levels."
First, claim 2 does not recite "typical" or simple "predefined
limits" in determining the recited "threshold value." Rather,
claim 2 recites the use of multiple schedule analysis to arrive at
this value. The Examiner's position interprets "the at least one
corresponding threshold 'value determined using an average of
an analysis of the measurable parameter for each schedule in a
plurality of schedules," in an unreasonably broad way so as to
boil-it-down to "typical" or "predefined limits based on known
quality levels." (emphasis original)
(Appeal Br. 11 ).
We agree with Appellants. Winter at page 9, lines 14--18 discloses:
35. Percentage of activities that are critical or near-critical:
Many specifications limit the percentage of activities that can
be critical or near-critical in the Baseline Schedule. A typical
upper limit is a maximum of 30% critical and 50% critical or
4
Appeal2013-006761
Application 11/185,225
near-critical. Near-critical may be any float equal or less than
10 (although this is not a set rule.)
Also, Winter at page 9 lines 27-30 discloses:
37. Activity Duration Checks: Look for longest acts and ask if
they are within spec limits. Consider a histogram of number of
acts and their durations as a way to 'see' distribution as well as
just numbers. NOTE: Many contracts specify the minimum or
maximum allowable durations of activities included in the
schedule.
We find nothing in these passages of Winter, including page 2
(discussing standards) of Winter, which discloses or suggests that the critical
or near critical percentage value is derived based on any average of an
analysis of the measurable parameter for each schedule in a plurality of
schedules. The Specification describes that the threshold value is derived
from,
[f]]or example, assume that a statistical analysis of a grouping
of six schedules known to be satisfactory results in a
determination that, on average, tasks comprise seventy percent
of the records in the known satisfactory schedules. Thus,
seventy percent may generally be used as a threshold value for
identifying a "satisfactory" or "good" schedule based upon the
ratio of tasks to records.
Specification 10:31-11: 8. At best, the Standards Schedule on Page 2 of
Winter discloses determining a pattern, but the disclosure stops there, and
does not even connect the pattern with the critical or near critical thresholds
of 30% and 50% found by the Examiner in Winter at page 9. We therefore
will not sustain the rejection of independent claims 1, 2, 11, and 20.
Claims 3, 6-10, 12, and 15-19 depend from claims 1, 2, 11, and 20.
Since we cannot sustain the rejection of claims 1, 2, 11, and 20, and any
5
Appeal2013-006761
Application 11/185,225
additional reference(s) are not cited for remedying the aforementioned
deficiency of claims 1, 2, 11, and 20, the rejection of claims 3, 6-10, 12, and
15-19 likewise cannot be sustained.
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
We conclude the Examiner did not err in rejecting claims 1-3, 6-12,
and 15-20 under 35 U.S.C. § 103.
DECISION
The decision of the Examiner to reject claims 1-3, 6-12, and 15-20 is
reversed.
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)(l )(iv).
REVERSED.
6