Ex Parte Fraser et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Aug 25, 2016

12437932 (P.T.A.B. Aug. 25, 2016)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE
12/437,932 05/08/2009
26096 7590 08/29/2016
CARLSON, GASKEY & OLDS, P,C
400 WEST MAPLE ROAD
SUITE 350
BIRMINGHAM, MI 48009
FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
Donald K. Fraser
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.
67409-00lPUS 1 8517
EXAMINER
ELKASSABGI, ZAHRA
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
3623
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
08/29/2016 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):
ptodocket@cgolaw.com
cgolaw@yahoo.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte DONALD K. FRASER and ERIC MYERS
Appeal2013-010972
Application 12/437,932
Technology Center 3600
Before MURRIEL E. CRAWFORD, HUBERT C. LORIN, and
CYNTHIA L. MURPHY, Administrative Patent Judges.
CRAWFORD, 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 decision rejecting claims 1-14. We have jurisdiction over the appeal
under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b ).
We AFFIRM-IN-PART.
Appeal2013-010972
Application 12/437,932
Claim 1 is illustrative:
1. A computer-implemented method of recording employment
history of a job seeker, comprising:
receiving at least one employment experience selection
from a job seeker;
in response to the step of receiving at least one
employment experience selection,
automatically presenting to the job seeker by a computer
over a network a plurality of skills and tasks related to the at
least one employment experience selection;
asking the job seeker to provide a time period
corresponding to an amount of time that the job seeker has used
a selected skill;
asking the job seeker to select one of a plurality of
predefined competency ratings for the selected skill;
receiving a time period and competency rating for the
selected skill;
providing a freeform text entry field on a computer
screen for the job seeker to provide information about how the
job seeker has performed a selected task; and
receiving over the network from the freeform text entry
field a description of how the job seeker has performed the
selected task; and
storing in a database on a server the at least one
employment experience selection, the selected skill and related
skill data received from the job seeker, and the selected task and
related task data received from the job seeker.
Appellants appeal the following rejection:
Claims 1-14 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Hughes
(US 2008/0027783 Al, pub. Jan. 31, 2008), Vianello (US 2008/0183488 Al,
pub. July 31, 2008), and Habichler (US 2007/0203710 Al, pub. Aug. 30,
2007).
2
Appeal2013-010972
Application 12/437,932
ISSUE
Did the Examiner err in rejecting the claims because Vianello does
not disclose automatically presenting to the job seeker a plurality of tasks
related to at least one employment experience selection in response to
receiving at least one employment experience selection?
ANALYSIS
The Appellants argue that Vianello does not disclose tasks let alone
automatically presenting tasks related to at least one employment experience
selection (Br. 6). We agree.
Appellants' Specification discloses that tasks are items the job seeker
has performed and skills are abilities that a job seeker is able to perform
[Spec. 4 7]. The Examiner relies on vast portions of Vianello for disclosing
this subject matter. Specifically, the Examiner cites paragraphs 9, 12, 93,
122, 150, 152-154, and 177 of Vianello as teaching this subject matter
(Final Act. 9-10).
We find that paragraph 9 of Vianello discloses that employers are
encountering difficulty in finding "talent" (i.e. qualified employees) and
"talent" (i.e., qualified job seekers) is struggling to find employers and
employment opportunities. Paragraph 12 discloses that part of the difficulty
for talent is to know the appropriate format for expressing his or her skills
and to know what type of information to share with a prospective employer.
Paragraph 93 discloses that a user must register as a talent by filling out a
profile that may include information regarding employment positions held
and his or her special skills. Paragraph 122 discloses that the number of
years of experience that a talent has is calculated by the career site operator
3
Appeal2013-010972
Application 12/437,932
to facilitate matching the industry experience offered by the talent and the
industry experience required by employers. Paragraph 150 discloses that a
talent is asked to describe their skills in each subcategory of data/analytical,
communications/people, and mechanical skills. Paragraphs 152-154
disclose that an occupational database can be used by employers to search
for talent and also used by talent to search for jobs. One of the ways that
employers can search for talent is by skills of the talent (Vianello, para.
152). Paragraph 177 discloses that the profile of the talent includes specific
structured background information, including information about training and
expenence.
We find that Vianello discloses that a talent is asked to provide a
profile that includes specific skills of the talent but does not address tasks
performed by the talent as defined by Appellants' Specification. More
importantly, we find no disclosure in the cited portions of Vianello relied on
by the Examiner of automatically presenting the job seeker or talent with a
plurality of tasks in response to receiving at least one employment
experience selection from the job seeker. The portions of Vianello relied on
by the Examiner relate to the talent submitting a profile but the Examiner
has not established that the profile is created by presenting the job seeker or
talent with a plurality of tasks or that such presentation is done in response
to receiving at least one employment selection from the job seeker or talent.
In view of the foregoing, we will not sustain the rejection of claim 1
and claims 2 and 3 dependent therefrom.
Claims 4 and 5 do not recite presenting to the job seeker a plurality of
tasks related to at least one employment experience selection in response to
receiving the employment selection from the job seeker. The Appellants
4
Appeal2013-010972
Application 12/437,932
have not addressed the recitations of these claims. As such we will sustain
the Examiner's rejection of claims 4 and 5 and claims 6-14 dependent
therefrom.
DECISION
We reverse the Examiner's rejection of claims 1-3.
We affirm the Examiner's rejection of claims 4--14.
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).
ORDER
AFFIRMED-IN-PART
5