Ex Parte Kline et alDownload PDFPatent Trial and Appeal BoardMar 21, 201611185225 (P.T.A.B. Mar. 21, 2016) Copy Citation 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 Copy with citationCopy as parenthetical citation