Erin Rae. Lambroschini

Patent Trials and Appeals Board

Aug 12, 2019

14036231 - (D) (P.T.A.B. Aug. 12, 2019)

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.
14/036,231 09/25/2013 Erin Rae Lambroschini 39975.0100 5428
11951 7590 08/12/2019
Pepper Hamilton LLP (Rochester)
70 Linden Oaks
Suite 210
Rochester, NY 14625
EXAMINER
SCHEUNEMANN, RICHARD N
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
3624
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
08/12/2019 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):
BadumK@pepperlaw.com
USPTOinboxroc@pepperlaw.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
____________________

BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
____________________

Ex parte ERIN RAE LAMBROSCHINI
____________________

Appeal 2017-011591
Application 14/036,231
Technology Center 3600
____________________

Before JASON V. MORGAN, JON M. JURGOVAN, and
KARA L. SZPONDOWSKI, Administrative Patent Judges.

SZPONDOWSKI, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL
Appellant appeals under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Examiner’s
Non-Final Rejection of claims 1, 2, 4–6, 8, 9, 11–13, 15, 16, and 18–20. We
have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We AFFIRM.

Appeal 2017-011591
Application 14/036,231

2
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Appellants’ invention is directed to methods and devices for matching
a candidate with a job. Spec. ¶ 1. Claim 1, reproduced below, is
representative of the claimed subject matter:
1. A method for analyzing and correlating candidate and job
requirement data sets to generate optimized sets of at least partial
matching job opportunities or candidates, the method comprising:

obtaining, by a job match management computing device,
candidate data for one or more candidates from a candidate computing
device and via at least one communication network, the candidate data
comprising an indication of one or more candidate skills selected via
one or more candidate web pages comprising one or more hierarchical
menus, wherein one or more of the candidate skills are selectable by
traversing more than one path in one or more of the hierarchical
menus;

obtaining, by the job match management computing device, job
opportunity data from an employer computing device and via the at
least one communication network, the job opportunity data
comprising an indication of one or more required job skills for one or
more job opportunities selected via the one or more job opportunity
web pages comprising the hierarchical menus;

automatically correlating, by the job match management
computing device, the candidate data and the job opportunity data to
identify one or more of the candidates with the candidate skills which
at least partially match the required job skills of one or more of the job
opportunities based on a weighted score for the one or more
candidates divided by a total weight value for each of the one or more
job opportunities for the one or more candidates, wherein the
weighted score and the total weight value are based on a weight value
assigned to each of the required job skills of the one or more of the
job opportunities; and

outputting, by the job match management computing device
and via a graphical display on a results web page, the identified at
Appeal 2017-011591
Application 14/036,231

3
least partial matches between the one or more candidates and the one
or more job opportunities to the candidate or employer computing
device over the at least one communication network.

REJECTIONS
Claims 1, 2, 4–6, 8, 9, 11–13, 15, 16, and 18–20 stand rejected under
35 U.S.C. § 101 as directed to patent ineligible subject matter.
Claims 1, 2, 4–6, 8, 9, 11–13, 15, 16, and 18–20 stand rejected under
35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over the combination of Puram et al.
(US 2003/0117444 A1; published June 26, 2003) (“Puram”) and Pasqualoni
et al. (US 2009/0248685 A1; published Oct. 1, 2009) (“Pasqualoni”).

ANALYSIS
35 U.S.C. § 101 Rejections
An invention is patent-eligible if it claims a “new and useful process,
machine, manufacture, or composition of matter.” 35 U.S.C. § 101.
However, the Supreme Court has long interpreted 35 U.S.C. § 101 to include
implicit exceptions: “[l]aws of nature, natural phenomena, and abstract
ideas” are not patentable. E.g., Alice Corp. v. CLS Bank Int’l, 573 U.S. 208,
216 (2014).
In determining whether a claim falls within an excluded category, we
are guided by the Supreme Court’s two-step framework, described in Mayo
and Alice. Id. at 217–18 (citing Mayo Collaborative Servs. v. Prometheus
Labs., Inc., 566 U.S. 66, 75–77 (2012)). In accordance with that framework,
we first determine what concept the claim is “directed to.” See Alice, 573
U.S. at 219 (“On their face, the claims before us are drawn to the concept of
intermediated settlement, i.e., the use of a third party to mitigate settlement
Appeal 2017-011591
Application 14/036,231

4
risk.”); see also Bilski v. Kappos, 561 U.S. 593, 611 (2010) (“Claims 1 and 4
in petitioners’ application explain the basic concept of hedging, or protecting
against risk.”).
Concepts determined to be abstract ideas, and thus patent ineligible,
include certain methods of organizing human activity, such as fundamental
economic practices (Alice, 573 U.S. at 219–20; Bilski, 561 U.S. at 611);
mathematical formulas (Parker v. Flook, 437 U.S. 584, 594–95 (1978)); and
mental processes (Gottschalk v. Benson, 409 U.S. 63, 69 (1972)).
If the claim is “directed to” an abstract idea, we turn to the second
step of the Alice and Mayo framework, where “we must examine the
elements of the claim to determine whether it contains an ‘inventive
concept’ sufficient to ‘transform’ the claimed abstract idea into a patent-
eligible application.” Alice, 573 U.S. at 221 (quotation marks omitted). “A
claim that recites an abstract idea must include ‘additional features’ to
ensure ‘that the [claim] is more than a drafting effort designed to
monopolize the [abstract idea].’” Id. (quoting Mayo, 566 U.S. at 77).
“[M]erely requir[ing] generic computer implementation[] fail[s] to transform
that abstract idea into a patent-eligible invention.” Id.
The PTO recently published revised guidance on the application of
§ 101. USPTO’s January 7, 2019 Memorandum, 2019 Revised Patent
Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance, 84 Fed. Reg. 50 (“Memorandum”).
Under that guidance, we first look to whether the claim recites:
(1) any judicial exceptions, including certain groupings of abstract
ideas (i.e., mathematical concepts, certain methods of organizing
human activity such as a fundamental economic practice, or mental
processes); and
Appeal 2017-011591
Application 14/036,231

5
(2) additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a
practical application (see MPEP § 2106.05(a)–(c), (e)–(h)).
Only if a claim (1) recites a judicial exception and (2) does not integrate that
exception into a practical application, do we then look to whether the claim:
(3) adds a specific limitation beyond the judicial exception that is not
“well-understood, routine, conventional” in the field (see MPEP
§ 2106.05(d)); or
(4) simply appends well-understood, routine, conventional activities
previously known to the industry, specified at a high level of
generality, to the judicial exception.
See Memorandum, 84 Fed. Reg. at 52–57.
Furthermore, the Memorandum “extracts and synthesizes key
concepts identified by the courts as abstract ideas to explain that the abstract
idea exception includes the following groupings of subject matter, when
recited as such in a claim limitation(s) (that is, when recited on their own or
per se)”:
(a) Mathematical concepts—mathematical relationships,
mathematical formulas or equations, mathematical calculations;

(b) Certain methods of organizing human activity—
fundamental economic principles or practices (including
hedging, insurance, mitigating risk); commercial or legal
interactions (including agreements in the form of contracts;
legal obligations; advertising, marketing or sales activities or
behaviors; business relations); managing personal behavior or
relationships or interactions between people (including social
activities, teaching, and following rules or instructions); and

(c) Mental processes—concepts performed in the human
mind (including an observation, evaluation, judgment, opinion).
Id. at 52 (footnotes omitted).
Appeal 2017-011591
Application 14/036,231

6
USPTO Memorandum, Step 2A, Prong 1
The Examiner determines the claims are directed to “generating
optimized sets of matching job opportunities or candidates,” which is an
abstract idea, specifically, an “idea of itself.” Non-Final Act. 5–6. The
Examiner determines “the claims recite steps for data acquisition, data
manipulation, and data reporting to identify job opportunities or candidates”
which “could be performed mentally or on paper.” Non-Final Act. 3, 6.
Appellant argues claims 1, 8, and 15 are “are directed to facilitating
web-based searching (e.g., via job search websites), to provide more
effective and accurate results sets as compared to using keyword searching,
which clearly require computer technology platforms and interfaces.” App.
Br. 14. According to Appellant, “obtaining job opportunity data, from an
employer computing device and via at least one communication network,
that includes an indication of job opportunities selected via job opportunity
web pages comprising hierarchical menus . . . cannot be performed in one’s
mind or by using pen and paper.” App. Br. 14. Appellant further contends
the identified limitations “require complex calculations and correlations,
using data input via web-based computer technology platforms and
interfaces, and cannot be performed manually.” App. Br. 15.
We are not persuaded by Appellant’s arguments. Appellant’s
Specification describes that job seekers may miss out on job opportunities if
they do not use accurate keywords for a job search when using a job search
tool on the Internet. Spec. ¶ 3. Appellant seeks to solve this problem by
providing more effective ways of searching and matching of candidates and
job opportunities where the searching and matching “does not rely solely on
traditional keyword entries, but also has the ability to provide a more
Appeal 2017-011591
Application 14/036,231

7
accurate match based on previously identified job skill and sub skill sets.”
Spec. ¶ 7.
Claim 1, with emphasis added, recites:
A method for analyzing and correlating candidate and job
requirement data sets to generate optimized sets of at least partial
matching job opportunities or candidates, the method comprising:

obtaining, by a job match management computing device,
candidate data for one or more candidates from a candidate
computing device and via at least one communication network, the
candidate data comprising an indication of one or more candidate
skills selected via one or more candidate web pages comprising one or
more hierarchical menus, wherein one or more of the candidate skills
are selectable by traversing more than one path in one or more of the
hierarchical menus;

obtaining, by the job match management computing device, job
opportunity data from an employer computing device and via the at
least one communication network, the job opportunity data
comprising an indication of one or more required job skills for one or
more job opportunities selected via the one or more job opportunity
web pages comprising the hierarchical menus;

automatically correlating, by the job match management
computing device, the candidate data and the job opportunity data to
identify one or more of the candidates with the candidate skills which
at least partially match the required job skills of one or more of the
job opportunities based on a weighted score for the one or more
candidates divided by a total weight value for each of the one or more
job opportunities for the one or more candidates, wherein the
weighted score and the total weight value are based on a weight value
assigned to each of the required job skills of the one or more of the
job opportunities; and

outputting, by the job match management computing device
and via a graphical display on a results web page, the identified at
least partial matches between the one or more candidates and the one
Appeal 2017-011591
Application 14/036,231

8
or more job opportunities to the candidate or employer computing
device over the at least one communication network.

Independent claim 8 is a non-transitory computer readable medium
claim reciting similar limitations, and independent claim 15 is a system
claim reciting similar limitations. See App. Br. 21–24. The emphasized
limitations are steps that can be performed by a human, either mentally or
with the use of pen and paper. Specifically, the claim limitations above are
directed to (i) obtaining candidate data and job opportunity data (collecting
information), (ii) correlating the candidate data and job opportunity data to
identify one or more of the candidates with the candidate skills which at
least partially match the required job skills of one or more of the job
opportunities (analyzing information), and (iii) outputting the identified
matches between the candidates and job opportunities (displaying
information). Each of these steps, both individually and as a combination,
can be performed by a human, either mentally or with the aid of paper and
pencil, which is similar to the claims found patent ineligible as mental
processes. See, e.g., CyberSource Corp. v. Retail Decisions, Inc., 654 F.3d
1366, 1373 (Fed. Cir. 2011); Intellectual Ventures I LLC v. Symantec Corp.,
838 F.3d 1307, 1318 (Fed. Cir. 2016); see also Versata Dev. Grp. v. SAP
Am., Inc., 793 F.3d 1306, 1335 (Fed. Cir. 2015). Moreover, the mere
mention of certain generic computer components in the claims with
descriptions of what the components are supposed to do (e.g. “job match
management computing device”), or who owns or uses the components (e.g.,
“candidate computing device” and “employer computing device”), or that
lack any distinguishing characteristics (e.g., “graphical display on a results
web page,” “communication network,” “processor,” and “memory”) does
Appeal 2017-011591
Application 14/036,231

9
not impose sufficiently meaningful limitations on claim scope beyond these
mental steps. Intellectual Ventures, 838 F.3d at 1318; Bancorp Servs.,
L.L.C. v. Sun Life Assur. Co. of Can. (U.S.), 687 F.3d 1266, 1278–79 (Fed.
Cir. 2012).
Although Appellant argues claims 1, 8, and 15 require “complex
calculations and correlations . . . that cannot be performed manually” (App.
Br. 15), the claim language is broad and does not recite any limitations
pertaining to the complexity of the calculations or correlations. See Ans. 7.
Accordingly, Appellant has not sufficiently argued why claims 1, 8,
and 15 do not recite an abstract idea, specifically a mental process.
USPTO Memorandum, Step 2A, Prong 2
In determining whether the claims are “directed to” the identified
abstract idea, we next consider whether the claims recite additional elements
that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application.1 We discern
no additional element (or combination of elements) recited in the claims that
integrates the judicial exception into a practical application. See
Memorandum, 84 Fed. Reg. at 54–55.
Appellant argues claims 1, 8, and 15 are “rooted in computer
technology and overcomes issues with prior web-based employment search

1 We acknowledge that some of the considerations at Step 2A, Prong Two,
properly may be evaluated under Step 2 of Alice (Step 2B of the Office
guidance). For purposes of maintaining consistent treatment within the
Office, we evaluate them under Step 1 of Alice (Step 2A of the Office
guidance). See Memorandum, 84 Fed. Reg. at 55 n.25, 27–32.

Appeal 2017-011591
Application 14/036,231

10
systems.” App. Br. 13. Specifically, Appellant argues the following
limitations:
obtain job opportunity data from an employer computing device
and via the at least one communication network, the job
opportunity data comprising an indication of one or more
required job skills for one or more job opportunities selected
via the one or more job opportunity web pages comprising the
hierarchical menus; or

automatically correlate the candidate data and the job
opportunity data to identify one or more of the candidates with
the candidate skills which at least partially match the required
job skills of one or more of the job opportunities based on a
weighted score for the one or more candidates divided by a total
weight value for each of the one or more job opportunities for
the one or more candidates, wherein the weighted score and the
total weight value are based on a weight value assigned to each
of the required job skills of the one or more of the job
opportunities,

are “significant and meaningful” and are “clearly rooted in, and solve prior
issues with, computer technology and are not directed to the abstract concept
of generating optimized sets of matching job opportunities or candidates.”
App. Br. 13–14; see also App. Br. 16. Citing to DDR Holdings, LLC v.
Hotels.com, L.P., 773 F.3d 1245, 1256 (Fed. Cir. 2014), Appellant argues
the claims “are specifically tied to computer technology and overcome a
problem only present in enterprise data networks.” App. Br. 15. Appellant
further argues the claims “provide[] an improvement in this technical field
by, for example, generating improved result sets that facilitate more
Appeal 2017-011591
Application 14/036,231

11
effective identification and determination of matching candidates or job
opportunities.” App. Br. 15.
Appellant further argues the claims
confine the claims to a particular useful application and are
narrowly tailored to overcome the problem of identifying
candidate profiles for candidates having a same number of
relevant skills as required for a job opportunity based on
associated required job skills, but a number of skills that are
unaligned with the most important for the job opportunity. The
claimed technology has not been utilized in this technical field
before to solve long standing computer related processing
issues with this type of candidate skills and required job skills
data.

App. Br. 16–17.
We are not persuaded by Appellant’s arguments. Rather, we agree
with the Examiner that Appellant’s claims are solving the problem of
matching candidates to job opportunities, which is a business problem and
not a technological problem. See Ans. 6. Appellant has not persuasively
explained why the claims “overcome a problem only present in enterprise
data networks.”
Moreover, although Appellant’s arguments focus on the hierarchical
menus structure recited in the claims (see App. Br. 16), we find no
indication in the Specification, nor does Appellant direct us to any
indication, that the operations recited by the claims invoke any inventive
programming, require any specialized computer hardware or other inventive
computer components (i.e., a particular machine), or that the claimed
invention is implemented using other than generic computer components
(e.g., computing device, web page, communication network, graphical
display, processor, memory) to perform generic computer functions (e.g.,
Appeal 2017-011591
Application 14/036,231

12
collecting, analyzing, and displaying data). See DDR Holdings, 773 F.3d at
1256 (“[A]fter Alice, there can remain no doubt: recitation of generic
computer limitations does not make an otherwise ineligible claim patent-
eligible.”); Spec. ¶¶ 22–42, see Final Act. 6; Ans. 6-7. The claims merely
add generic computer components (e.g., computing device, web page,
communication network, graphical display, processor, memory) to support
the abstract idea, which is insufficient to integrate the judicial exception into
a practical application.
Moreover, we are unpersuaded the claims constitute an improvement
to the functioning of the computer; they merely adapt the abstract idea to an
execution of steps performed on a computer. See Credit Acceptance Corp.
v. Westlake Services, 859 F.3d 1044, 1055 (Fed. Cir. 2017) (“Our prior cases
have made clear that mere automation of manual processes using generic
computers does not constitute a patentable improvement in computer
technology.”). Appellant’s argument addresses the efficiencies provided by
the automation of the mental process, e.g., more effective and accurate result
sets, rather than an improvement to the functioning of the computer.
However, “relying on a computer to perform routine tasks more quickly or
more accurately is insufficient to render a claim patent eligible.” OIP
Techs., 788 F.3d at 1363 (citing Alice, 573 U.S. at 224 (“use of a computer
to create electronic records, track multiple transactions, and issue
simultaneous instructions” is not an inventive concept)); Bancorp, 687 F.3d
at 1278 (a computer “employed only for its most basic function . . . does not
impose meaningful limits on the scope of those claims”).
For these reasons, we are not persuaded of error in the Examiner’s
determination that the claims are directed to an abstract idea.
Appeal 2017-011591
Application 14/036,231

13
USPTO Memorandum, Step 2B
Turning to step 2 of the Alice/Mayo framework, we look to whether
the claims: (a) add a specific limitation or combination of limitations that
are not well-understood, routine, conventional activity in the field, or
(b) simply append well-understood, routine, conventional activities
previously known to the industry, specified at a high level of generality, to
the judicial exception. Memorandum, 84 Fed. Reg. at 56.
Appellant argues claims 1, 8, and 15 “add specific limitations other
than what is well-understood, routine, and conventional in the field, and add
unconventional steps that confine the claims to a particular useful
application.” App. Br. 15. Specifically, Appellant argues the claims
“require obtaining candidate data for candidates including an indication of
candidate skills selected via candidate web pages comprising hierarchical
menus, wherein one or more of the candidate skills are selectable by
traversing more than one path in one or more of the hierarchical menus
which is not well understood, routine or conventional in this technology
field.” App. Br. 16. Appellant argues
the claimed technology has developed a hierarchical menu
structure provided via web page(s) that allows candidates to
locate skills via multiple paths through various levels and
associated with different sectors, that is not well understood,
routine or conventional in this technology field and which
results in more accurate and through candidate skills data and
associated improved job matching.

App. Br. 16. Appellant further argues the claims
require automatically correlating candidate data and job
opportunity data to identify candidates with candidate skills
which at least partially match required job skills of one or more
job opportunities based on a weighted score for the candidates
Appeal 2017-011591
Application 14/036,231

14
divided by a total weight value for each of the job opportunities
for the candidates which is not well understood, routine or
conventional in this technology field.

App. Br. 16.
As discussed above, the claims are directed to (i) obtaining candidate
data and job opportunity data (collecting information), (ii) correlating the
candidate data and job opportunity data to identify one or more of the
candidates with the candidate skills which at least partially match the
required job skills of one or more of the job opportunities (analyzing
information), and (iii) outputting the identified matches between the
candidates and job opportunities (displaying information). Thus, even when
viewed as a whole, nothing in the claim adds significantly more (i.e., an
inventive concept) to the abstract idea. Similarly, the additional elements in
the claim amount to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception
using generic computer components, which is insufficient to provide an
inventive concept. See Spec. ¶ 38 (“each of the systems in the examples
may be conveniently implemented using one or more general purpose
computer systems . . .”); see also Spec. ¶ 42. As discussed above, Appellant
does not direct our attention to anything in the Specification that indicates
the claimed computer components perform anything other than well-
understood, routine, and conventional processing functions, such as
receiving, analyzing, and outputting data. See Elec. Power Grp., LLC v.
Alstom SA, 830 F.3d 1350, 1355 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (“Nothing in the claims,
understood in light of the specification, requires anything other than off-the-
shelf, conventional computer, network, and display technology for
gathering, sending, and presenting the desired information”); buySAFE, Inc.
Appeal 2017-011591
Application 14/036,231

15
v. Google, Inc., 765 F.3d 1350, 1355 (Fed. Cir. 2014) (“That a computer
receives and sends the information over a network—with no further
specification—is not even arguably inventive”); Alice, 573 U.S. at 224–26
(receiving, storing, sending information over networks insufficient to add an
inventive concept). In short, each step does no more than require a generic
computer to perform generic computer functions.
Furthermore, we are unable discern anything in the claims, even when
the recitations are considered in combination, that represents something
more than the performance of routine, conventional functions of a generic
computer. That is, the claims at issue do not require any nonconventional
computer components, or even a “non-conventional and non-generic
arrangement of known, conventional pieces,” but merely call for
performance of the claimed information receiving, analyzing, and outputting
data “on a set of generic computer components.” Bascom Glob. Internet
Servs., Inc. v. AT&T Mobility LLC, 827 F.3d 1341, 1350 (Fed. Cir. 2016).
Appellant does not separately argue the dependent claims.
Accordingly, for the foregoing reasons we sustain the Examiner’s 35 U.S.C.
§ 101 rejection of claims 1–20.

35 U.S.C. 103 Rejections
Dispositive Issue: Did the Examiner err in finding the combination of
Puram and Pasqualoni teaches or suggests “obtaining, by a job match
management computing device, candidate data for one or more candidate
web pages comprising one or more hierarchical menus, wherein one or more
of the candidate skills are selectable by traversing more than one path in one
Appeal 2017-011591
Application 14/036,231

16
or more of the hierarchical menus,” as recited by claim 1 and
commensurately recited in claims 8 and 15?
The Examiner finds “Puram does not specifically disclose, but
Pasqualoni discloses, comprising one or more hierarchical menus, wherein
one or more of the candidate skills are selectable by traversing more than
one path in one or more of the hierarchical menus.” Non-Final Act. 9 (citing
Pasqualoni, Fig. 10, ¶ 53). Specifically, the Examiner relies on Pasqualoni
Figure 10, the pertinent portion of which is reproduced below:

The reproduced portion of Figure 10 depicts a user interface, whereby a user
may select from a hierarchical menu of skills 304, 306, and 308. A broad
category of skill is selected from a list in list 304, then a subcategory of the
skill is selected from list 306, and a sub-subcategory is selected from list
308. See Pasqualoni ¶ 53.
The Examiner finds that the menu items shown in Figure 10 of
Pasqualoni correspond to the “paths” of the different hierarchical levels of
the menus as claimed, and as shown in Appellant’s Figure 5, and are the
“functional equivalent” of each other. Ans. 3–5. Appellant’s Figure 5 is
reproduced below:
Appeal 2017-011591
Application 14/036,231

17

Appellant’s Figure 5 depicts a hierarchical menu of skills and associated job
sub-skills. Figure 5 shows that certain job sub-skills, such as “Adobe
Illustrator” and “Graphic Design,” may be found through paths 1, 2, or 3.
See Spec. ¶ 45.
Appellant argues Pasqualoni merely discloses a hierarchical menu in
which a skill is selected in a first menu, a subcategory of the skill is then
selected in a second menu, and a sub-subcategory of the skill is then selected
in a third menu.” App. Br. 6. According to Appellant, “there is only one
path to each of the sub-subcategories and subcategories in Pasqualoni, and
Pasqualoni does not disclose or suggest any candidate skill that is selectable
by traversing more than one path in a hierarchical menu.” App. Br. 7.
Appellant further argues “the selectability of more than one item in a
category or subcategory is irrelevant to whether there is more than one path
to any of the items.” App. Br. 7.
We are persuaded by Appellant’s arguments. Although Pasqualoni
teaches a hierarchical menu, we do not agree with the Examiner that
Pasqualoni’s hierarchical menu teaches “one or more hierarchical menus,
Appeal 2017-011591
Application 14/036,231

18
wherein one or more of the candidate skills are selectable by traversing more
than one path in one or more of the hierarchical menus.” Rather, the
hierarchical menus disclosed in Pasqualoni depict traversal of a single path
to select a candidate skill.
Accordingly, we are persuaded the Examiner erred. Because we agree
with at least one of the arguments advanced by Appellant, we need not
address Appellant’s remaining arguments. We, therefore, do not sustain the
Examiner’s 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) rejection of independent claims 1, 8, and 15.
For the same reasons, we do not sustain the Examiner’s 35 U.S.C. § 103(a)
rejection of dependent claims 2, 4–6, 9, 11–13, 16, and 18–20.

DECISION
We affirm the Examiner’s 35 U.S.C. § 101 rejection of claims 1, 2, 4–
6, 8, 9, 11–13, 15, 16, and 18–20.
We reverse the Examiner’s 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) rejection of claims 1,
2, 4–6, 8, 9, 11–13, 15, 16, and 18–20.
No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with
this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a)(1)(iv).

AFFIRMED