Ex Parte Estefania et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Jun 20, 2016

11305823 (P.T.A.B. Jun. 20, 2016)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
111305,823 12/16/2005
21186 7590 06/22/2016
SCHWEGMAN LUNDBERG & WOESSNER, P.A.
P.O. BOX 2938
MINNEAPOLIS, MN 55402
Santiago Estefania
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.
1880.044US3 7960
EXAMINER
BOYCE, ANDRE D
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
3623
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
06/22/2016 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 SANTIAGO ESTEP ANIA,
TRAVIS ALLEN JOHNSON, RONALD LEON, and
ROBERT GREGOR VILLALOBOS
Appeal 2014-004 7 41 1
Application 11/305,8232
Technology Center 3600
Before MICHAEL C. ASTORINO, TARA L. HUTCHINGS, and
MATTHEWS. MEYERS, Administrative Patent Judges.
MEYERS, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Appellants appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Examiner's final
rejection of claims 1-39. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We REVERSE.
1 Our decision references Appellants' Appeal Brief ("Appeal Br.," filed
September 24, 2013) and Reply Brief, ("Reply Br.," filed March 14, 2014),
the Examiner's Answer ("Ans.," mailed January 17, 2014), and Final Office
Action ("Final Act.," mailed December 19, 2012).
2 Appellants identify Halliburton Energy Services, Inc. as the real party in
interest (Appeal Br. 2).
Appeal2014-004741
Application 11/305,823
CLAIMED fNVENTION
Appellants' claimed invention relates generally "to processing of
observed data received over a network" (Spec. i-f 2).
Claim 1, reproduced below with added bracketed notations, is
illustrative of the subject matter on appeal:
1. An apparatus comprising:
[a] a storage medium to store a database;
[b] a port to receive, over a network, data related to
observations of unsafe activity at a work site based on input into
a first electronic device, the unsafe activity excluding actual
work site injuries and/or accidents;
[ c] a processor to store the data into the database;
[ d] wherein the database includes an observation table that
stores the received observation and a table for storing data related
to an observer including geographic location, name of product,
name of client, time period or name of person that observed the
unsafe activity;
[ e] wherein separate databases are provided for different
business entities and/ or different groups within a business entity;
and
[ f] wherein the processor is programmed to send over the
network the data related to observations of unsafe activity to a
second electronic device if the number of the observations
exceeds a specified threshold.
REJECTIONS
Claims 1-11, 13-16, and 19-39 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a)
as unpatentable over Schwarz (US 2004/0249701 Al, pub. Dec. 9, 2004)
and Britton (US 2005/0055330 Al, pub. Mar. 10, 2005).
Claims 12, 17, and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
unpatentable over Schwarz, Britton, and Official Notice.
2
Appeal2014-004741
Application 11/305,823
ANALYSIS
Independent claim 1 and dependent claims 2-6 and 3 7
We are persuaded by Appellants' argument that the Examiner erred in
rejecting independent claim 1 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) because Schwarz,
upon which the Examiner relies, fails to disclose or suggest "separate
databases are provided for different business entities and/or different groups
within a business entity," as recited by limitation [ e] of independent claim 1
(see Appeal Br. 5---6; see also Reply Br. 1-2). The Examiner maintains that
the rejection is proper, and cites paragraphs 41, 60, and 82, as well as Figure
10, of Schwarz as disclosing the argued limitation (see Final Act. 3; see also
Ans. 2-3).
Schwarz is directed to
an Injury Reporting and Safety System and method which may
be utilized by labor and industry in order to accurately,
efficiently and reliably report and record causes and types of
worksite injuries and hazardous exposures for the purpose of
analyzing, coordinating and protecting the interests of injured
individuals and workers as well as a means of promoting a safer
work environment for the benefit of both labor and industry.
(Schwarz i-f 3). Schwarz discloses that its "Injury Reporting and Safety
System allows for analysis and comparison, intra-industry, among other
similarly situated parties in labor and industry on a local and also national
level" (id. i-f 16; see also id. i-f 60). Schwarz further discloses that its system
allows "for comparison in order to recognize trends involving causes of
workplace injuries on not only a local but also a national level through the
computer networking process established through the Injury Reporting and
Safety System web server" (id. i-f 58; see also id. i-f 41 ).
3
Appeal2014-004741
Application 11/305,823
The Examiner finds
FIG. 10 shows a flow diagram illustrating how data and
information may be exchanged and networked by labor and
industry and in accordance with the present invention. In FIG.
10, additional work groups beyond the airline industry and the
pipe trade are shown as examples. This will be particularly
helpful in workplaces where multiple group/organizations have
workers (emphasis [original], 0082). Specifically, pipe trade,
carpenters, electricians, dock builders, etc., are seen as having
separate databases in figure 10. These multiple
groups/organizations are clearly different groups within a
business entity, as claimed by Appellant[ s].
(Ans. 2-3).
The difficulty with the Examiner's analysis, as Appellants point out, is
that "the different types of industry in Schwarz provide respective groups
consistent with claim 1, but there is no business entity that provides a larger
whole of which these groups form part" (Reply Br. 2). That is, although
Figure 10 and the Examiner's cited portions of Schwarz disclose "different
groups,'' e.g., "additional work groups beyond the airline industry and the
pipe trade" (Schwarz i-f 82), as required by limitation [ e ], Schwarz does not
disclose that these different groups are "within a business entity," as further
required by limitation [ e]. Thus, we agree with Appellants that Schwarz
fails to disclose or suggest "separate databases are provided for different
business entities and/or different groups within a business entity," as recited
by limitation [ e] of independent claim 1.
And, to the extent the Examiner may be relying on the multiple local
worksite computer systems in communication with each group or industry,
as depicted by Figure 10 of Schwarz, the Examiner has not shown, and we
are unable to find where Schwarz discloses that these local computer
systems each include "separate databases," as independent claim 1 requires.
4
Appeal2014-004741
Application 11/305,823
Instead, Schwarz discloses that data are recorded directly into its Injury
Reporting and Safety System (see Schwarz i-fi-136, 68). For example, in
describing how data are reported, Schwarz discloses that "computer data
entry ... involves either directly inputting worksite injury information into
the Injury Reporting and Safety System computer database or by telephone"
(id. i136). Thus, Schwarz refers only to its "Injury Reporting and Safety
System computer database," and as such, fails to disclose or suggest
"separate databases are provided for different business entities and/ or
different groups within a business entity," as recited by limitation [ e] of
independent claim 1. The addition of Britton fails to cure this deficiency.
In view of the foregoing, we do not sustain the Examiner's rejection
of independent claim 1under35 U.S.C. § 103(a). For the same reasons, we
also do not sustain the Examiner's rejection of dependent claims 2-6 and 37.
Independent claims 7, 13, 23, and 28, and dependent claims 8-11, 14-16,
19-22, 24-27, 29-36, 38, and 39
Independent claims 7, 13, 23, and 28 include a limitation substantially
similar to independent claim 1 's limitation discussed above. Therefore, we
do not sustain the Examiner's rejection under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) of
independent claims 7, 13, 23, and 28, and claims 8-11, 14--16, 19-22, 24--
27, 29-36, 38, and 39 that depend therefrom, for the same reasons set forth
above with respect to independent claim 1.
Dependent claims 12, 17, and 18
Claims 12, 17, and 18 depend from independent claims 7 and 13. The
Examiner's rejection of claims 12, 17, and 18 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a)
based on Official Notice, in combination with Schwarz and Britton, does not
5
Appeal2014-004741
Application 11/305,823
cure the deficiency in the Examiner's rejection of independent claim 1.
Therefore, we do not sustain the Examiner's rejection of claims 12, 17, and
18 under 3 5 U.S. C. § 103 (a) for the same reasons set forth above with
respect to the independent claims.
DECISION
The Examiner's rejections of claims 1-39 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a)
are reversed.
REVERSED
6