Ex parte CASTONGUAY et al.

Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences

Jul 21, 1998

07597370 (B.P.A.I. Jul. 21, 1998)

Application for patent filed October 12, 1990.1
1
THIS OPINION WAS NOT WRITTEN FOR PUBLICATION
The opinion in support of the decision being entered today (1)
was not written for publication in a law journal and (2) is
not binding precedent of the Board.
Paper No. 30
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
_____________
BEFORE THE BOARD OF PATENT APPEALS
AND INTERFERENCES
_____________
Ex parte RONALD M. CASTONGUAY, and
GARY B. CROCKETT
_____________
Appeal No. 95-2004
Application 07/597,3701
______________
ON BRIEF
_______________
Before THOMAS, KRASS and LEE, Administrative Patent Judges.
LEE, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
This is a decision on appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134 from
the examiner's final rejection of claims 6 and 13-15. Claims
1-5 and 7-12 have been canceled. No claim has been allowed.
References relied on by the Examiner
Fields et al. (Fields) 5,111,391 May 1992
Appeal No. 95-2004
Application 07/597,370
2
NAMES© Scheduling System "Telemarketing Know-How from AT&T",
issued 1989 by AT&T. (AT&T Names)
The Rejections on Appeal
Claims 6 and 13-15 stand finally rejected under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103 as being unpatentable over Fields and AT&T Names.
The Invention
The invention is directed to a method for planning and
managing personnel in an environment in which there is a
constantly varying event load by the time of day and by the
day of week. The personnel includes a team of servers to
service the event load. Claim 13 is the only independent
claim and reads as follows:
13. A method using a central computer and a plurality of
workstation computers connected to the central computer,
for planning and managing personnel in an environment in
which there is a constantly varying event load by time of
day and by day of week, the personnel including a team of
servers responsible for servicing the event load, each of
the central and workstation computers including a
processor, comprising the steps of:
(a) organizing the team of servers responsible
for servicing the constantly varying event load
into a plurality of management units, each
management unit having at least one workstation
computer for managing one or more groups of
individual servers at the management unit and
for communicating with the central computer;
Appeal No. 95-2004
Application 07/597,370
3
(b) using the processor of the central computer
to generate a forecast of (i) an event load
expected to occur during intervals of a forecast
time period, and (ii) a number of servers
required to service the expected event load
during each interval of the forecast time
period;
(c) using the processor of the central computer
to allocate the expected event load among the
plurality of management units according to a
predetermined number of servers expected to be
available at each management unit during each
interval of the forecast time period; and
(d)using the processor of the central computer
to reallocate the expected event load among the
plurality of management units during one or more
intervals of the forecast time period, the
reallocated event load being communicated from
the central computer to the management unit
workstation computers.
Opinion
We do not sustain the rejection of claims 6 and 13-15 as
being unpatentable over Fields and AT&T Names.
The appellants correctly point out that claim 13
specifies a plurality of management units which together
service an overall event load and each management unit
includes one or more groups of individual servers. The
examiner cited to Fields as disclosing a staff scheduling
system for managing a "multi-unit operation" (answer at 4,
Appeal No. 95-2004
Application 07/597,370
4
lines 13-14), and states (answer at 4, lines 19-22): "Since
this is a multi-unit system or a multi-unit organization, it
would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art
that each of these location does work in a cooperative
manner." We disagree with the examiner. The multiple units
or stores in Fields do not cooperate with each other to
service an overall event load.
In Field’s disclosure, there is no overall event load.
Each store location has its own unique event load which is
served by
resources specific for that location. The examiner has not
established that any event load is allocated across plural
store locations. In that regard, claim 13 specifically
requires: "allocating the expected event load among the
plurality of management units according to a predetermined
number of servers expected to be available at each management
unit during each interval of the forecast time period." It is
implicit in claim 13 that plural management units would
participate at any one time to respond collectively to the
total event load. That is also consistent with the
Appeal No. 95-2004
Application 07/597,370
5
appellants’ specification. The examiner has not demonstrated
in Fields a collective servicing of the total event load by
servers from different operational units according to the
availability of servers at the various units.
Fields involves the creation of an optimum staff schedule
for each store location based on the specific requirements of
the location. Note that in column 1, lines 46-52, Fields
states:
Each remote location has unique differences in
layout, sales patterns, sales volume, and product
mix. These differences are further complicated by
the uniqueness of each day of the week and
seasonality of the year. Such variables must be
combined and examined to create a unique optimum
staff schedule for each remote location.
The mere fact that Fields refers to a multi-unit operation
does not satisfy or reasonably suggest the claim feature at
issue.
The appellants correctly assert that the examiner has miscon-
strued Fields (Br. at 7). The appellants’ claimed allocating
step is not found or reasonably suggested by Fields. It has
not been shown that the multiple units of Fields cooperate to
Appeal No. 95-2004
Application 07/597,370
6
share the responsibility for handling a collective event load.
The examiner answers that the appellants’ claims do not
positively recite "working in a cooperative manner." That is
true, but the claims require a plurality of management units
to service the event load, and it is recited that the expected
event load is allocated among the different management units.
Thus, the management units must cooperate at least in that
manner. The use of a central authority or station to make the
individual schedules of many store units whose individual
event loads and personnel resources are separate from each
other does not satisfy the appellants’ claims.
We reject the appellants’ other argument that Fields does
not disclose for each store a constantly varying event load by
time of day and by the day of week. In our view, because the
tasks to be serviced in each store varies by the time of day
and by the day of week, Fields does disclose, for each store
unit, a constantly varying event load.
The examiner relied on AT&T Names to try to account for
the "reallocating" step required by the appellants’ claim 13
(answer
Appeal No. 95-2004
Application 07/597,370
7
at 3-4). But the deficiency of Fields is not made up by the
disclosure of AT&T Names. While AT&T Names refers to a "team"
for handling calls, the appellants correctly argue (Br. at 12)
that the team of AT&T Names is not subdivided into a plurality
of management units which cooperate to handle a total event
load. Thus, the allocating step of claim 13 is also lacking
in AT&T Names, as it is lacking in Fields. The system of AT&T
Names (at 2-1) forecasts work volume based on historical data,
determines how many people are needed to achieve a desired
level of service, and selects the people based on their
availability. But the examiner has not identified any
disclosure which reasonably would have suggested "allocating
the expected event load among the plurality of management
units according to a predetermined number of servers expected
to be available at each management unit during each interval
of the forecast time period."
Moreover, claim 13 further requires the step of
reallocating the expected event load among the plurality of
management units during one or more intervals of the forecast
time period. We disagree with the appellants’ contention that
AT&T Names does not disclose or reasonably suggest changing
Appeal No. 95-2004
Application 07/597,370
8
schedules during an actual forecast time period based on the
actual event load for that period. On pages 3-18, AT&T Names
states that an automated
telemarketing center cannot afford to rely on information that
is two or three days old and the best schedule will reflect
"up to the minute" changes. It also states that adjustments
in schedules can be done any time after the schedule has been
created. Thus, in our view, the disclosure reasonably would
have suggested making changes during the actual forecast
period. Nevertheless, the examiner has failed to identify or
otherwise explain any reasonable suggestion stemming from AT&T
Names for a plurality of management units which collectively
service a event load, whether by allocation or reallocation of
the event load.
From the bottom of page 13 to the top of page 14 in the
answer, the examiner states that AT&T Names discloses having
more than one team of call handlers and therefore implies
having more than one supervisory group, citing pages 3-3 and
3-16. However, we can find no such disclosure on page 3-3 of
Appeal No. 95-2004
Application 07/597,370
9
AT&T Names, and on page 3-16 of the reference, we find only a
single reference to "each team leader in the office." The
examiner is reading far too much into the phrase "each team
leader in the office." The phrase does not reasonably
disclose or suggest that the entire event load of incoming
calls at any one time is collectively serviced by a plurality
of teams/management units which are allocated respective
portions of the entire load. It is mere
speculation that this is the case. Moreover, the other parts
of the AT&T Names reference do not corroborate the picture as
envisioned by the examiner. It may be that for each shift the
team is under the management of a team leader and several
individuals in the office are qualified to serve in that role.
Or, there may be more than one team but each team is
responsible for a separate shift. Note also that on page 3-3,
AT&T Names indicates that all employees are in one supervisory
group. The examiner simply has not established that AT&T
Names discloses or would have reasonably suggested that more
than one management unit or team is called upon at any one
Appeal No. 95-2004
Application 07/597,370
10
time to collectively service an incoming total event load.
We reiterate that in our view the allocating step of
claim 13 requires plural management units to be active in any
one time period or shift. It would be unreasonable to regard
the claimed allocation feature as being met by merely having
more than one employee shift in one 24 hour period. While
each shift would presumably handle the entirety of the event
load to another shift during the period of that shift and thus
no allocation of the event load occurs, it is implicit in the
claims that the plural management units must share
responsibility for work in the same period or shift. In any
event, the examiner has not taken the view that merely having
different shifts in the day satisfies the claimed allocation
feature. Neither do we.
For the foregoing reasons, we do not sustain the
rejection of claim 13, and claims 6 and 14-15 all of which
depend from claim 13, over Fields and AT&T Names.
Appeal No. 95-2004
Application 07/597,370
11
Conclusion
The rejection of claims 6 and 13-15 under 35 U.S.C. § 103
as being unpatentable over Fields and AT&T Names is reversed.
REVERSED
JAMES D. THOMAS )
Administrative Patent Judge )
)
)
) BOARD OF PATENT
ERROL A. KRASS ) APPEALS AND
Administrative Patent Judge ) INTERFERENCES
)
)
)
JAMESON LEE )
Administrative Patent Judge )
Appeal No. 95-2004
Application 07/597,370
12
David H. Judson
Hughes & Luce
1717 Main Street
Suite 2800
Dallas, TX 75201