Ex Parte Smith et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

May 26, 2016

12776569 (P.T.A.B. May. 26, 2016)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE
121776,569 05/10/2010
3705 7590 05/31/2016
ECKERT SEAMANS CHERIN & MELLOTT
600 GRANT STREET
44THFLOOR
PITTSBURGH, PA 15219
FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
BRADLEY PAUL SMITH
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.
301151-00002 2617
EXAMINER
BOYCE, ANDRE D
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
3623
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
05/31/2016 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):
ipmail@eckertseamans.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte BRADLEY PAUL SMITH and SANFORD G. KULKIN
Appeal2014-001349
Application 12/776,569
Technology Center 3600
Before BIBHU R. MOHANTY, BRUCE T. WIEDER, and
TARA L. HUTCHINGS, Administrative Patent Judges.
MOHANTY, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
The Appellants seek our review under 35 U.S.C. § 134 of the final
rejection of claims 1-21 which are all the claims pending in the application.
We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
SUMMARY OF THE DECISION
We REVERSE.
Appeal2014-001349
Application 12/776,569
THE INVENTION
The Appellants' claimed invention is directed to facilitating a match
between an employer and job seekers for a job opening using a job seekers
performance quotient which uses normalized assessment data, to a position
quotient (Spec. 6:9-12). Claim 1, reproduced below, is representative of
the subject matter on appeal.
1. A computerized method for a facilitator to a match an employer
with at least one job opening to job seekers, wherein said employer
has a set of position preferences, said job seekers have identifiable
suitability data, said suitability data including normalized assessment
data, said method performed on said facilitator's computer, said
method comprising the steps of:
determining on a computer a position quotient based on said
position preferences;
deriving on a computer a performance quotient for each job
seeker, said performance quotient including normalized assessment
data;
comparing on a computer each said performance quotient to
• ,..1 • • • ,..1 sa1u pos1t1on quotient; anu
ranking on a computer each said job seeker based on the
comparison of said performance quotient to said position quotient.
THE REJECTIONS
The following rejections are before us for review:
1. Claims 1-3, 5-8, 10-12 and 16-21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C.
§ 102(b) as anticipated by Bullock (US 7,457,764 Bl, Nov. 25, 2008).
2. Claims 4, 9, and 13-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
unpatentable over Bullock and Concordia (US Patent 2008/0071746 Al,
Mar. 20, 2008).
2
Appeal2014-001349
Application 12/776,569
FTI'-JDINGS OF FACT
We have determined that the findings of fact in the Analysis section
below are supported at least by a preponderance of the evidence1.
ANALYSIS
The Appellants argue that the rejection of claim 1 is improper because
the cited prior art fails to disclose claim limitations for the "position
quotient" based on position preferences and a "performance quotient" for
each job seeker that includes "normalized assessment data" (App. Br. 9-20).
In contrast, the Examiner has determined that the cited claim
limitations are shown by Bullock at col. 4:36-41, col. 7:29--45, col.
7:65-8:16; col. 10:38-56, and Figures 11and12 (Final Rej. 2--4, Ans. 5-7).
We agree with the Appellants. Here, the cited claim limitation
requires determining a "position quotient" based on position preferences and
also a "performance quotient" for each job seeker that includes "normalized
assessment data". Here, the citations to Bullock at 7: 65-8: 16 do show the
determination of a "position quotient" for the positions and "performance
quotient" (see also Fig. 11, items 404 & 406). However, the claim
specifically requires that the "performance quotient" for each job seeker
include "normalized assessment data" and the above citations to the prior art
fail to disclose this. For example, the citation to Bullock at col. 10:38-56
discloses the use of final scores that are "normalized" for the assessment
between the profiles rather than in the "performance quotient" as claimed.
1 See Ethicon, Inc. v. Quigg, 849 F.2d 1422, 1427 (Fed. Cir. 1988)
(explaining the general evidentiary standard for proceedings before the
Patent Office).
3
Appeal2014-001349
Application 12/776,569
As the cited claim limitation for a "performance quotient" for each job
seeker that includes "normalized assessment data" has not been shown, the
rejections of claim 1 and its dependent claims are not sustained. The
remaining claims contain a similar limitation and the rejections of these
claims are not sustained for the same reasons given above.
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
We conclude that Appellants have shown that the Examiner erred in
rejecting the claims as listed in the Rejections section above.
DECISION
The Examiner's rejection of claims 1-21 is reversed.
REVERSED
4