Ex Parte Tewari et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Sep 4, 2013

11540320 (P.T.A.B. Sep. 4, 2013)

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.
11/540,320 09/29/2006 Swati Tewari 5868-00160 2356
26753 7590 09/05/2013
ANDRUS, SCEALES, STARKE & SAWALL, LLP
100 EAST WISCONSIN AVENUE, SUITE 1100
MILWAUKEE, WI 53202
EXAMINER
MANSFIELD, THOMAS L
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
3624
MAIL DATE DELIVERY MODE
09/05/2013 PAPER
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.
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
____________________

BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
____________________

Ex parte SWATI TEWARI, MICHAEL ROBERT BOURKE,
JASON FAMA, and SHMUEL KORENBLIT
____________________

Appeal 2011-009932
Application 11/540,320
Technology Center 3600
____________________

Before JOSEPH A. FISCHETTI, MEREDITH C. PETRAVICK, and
NINA L. MEDLOCK, Administrative Patent Judges.

MEDLOCK, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL
Appeal 2011-009932
Application 11/540,320

2
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Appellants appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Examiner’s final
rejection of claims 1-20. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).

STATEMENT OF THE DECISION
We REVERSE.
1

BACKGROUND
Appellants’ invention relates to customer centers, and more
specifically, to scheduling of a workforce (Spec., para. [001]).
Claim 1, reproduced below with added bracketed notations, is
representative of the subject matter on appeal:
1. A method of operating a computer system to perform
partial shift swapping, the method comprising the steps of:
generating a schedule comprising a plurality of shifts;
in the computer system:
[a] receiving a partial shift swap request from an
agent;
[b] determining a disposition of the partial shift
swap request by applying a set of criteria associated with
a hard validation rule to the partial shift swap request;
[c] if the partial shift swap request is denied based
on the hard validation rule, denying the partial shift swap
request;
[d] if the partial shift swap request is not denied
based on the hard validation rule, applying a set of
criteria associated with a soft validation rule to the partial
shift swap request;

1
Our decision will make reference to Appellants’ Appeal Brief (“App.
Br.,” filed November 22, 2010) and Reply Brief (“Reply Br.,” filed April 4,
2011) and the Examiner’s Answer (“Ans.,” mailed February 4, 2011).
Appeal 2011-009932
Application 11/540,320

3
[e] if the partial shift swap request is not approved
based on the soft validation rule, providing the partial
shift swap request for review; and
[f] if the disposition indicates the partial shift swap
request is approved, updating the schedule to reflect the
partial shift swap request.

THE REJECTIONS
The following rejections are before us for review:
Claims 1-20 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 102(e) as being
anticipated by DeSilva (WO 2004/107119 A2, pub. Dec. 9, 2004).
2

ANALYSIS
Independent claim 1 and dependent claims 2-10
We are persuaded that the Examiner erred in rejecting claim 1 under
35 U.S.C. § 102(e) by Appellants’ argument that DeSilva fails to disclose
applying a set of criteria associated with a hard validation rule and a set of
criteria associated with a soft validation rule to a partial shift swap request,
i.e., steps [b] and [d], as recited in claim 1 (App. Br. 6-8 and Reply Br. 2-3).
The Examiner cites paragraphs [0009] through [0013], [0020] through
[0025], [0041] through [0051], and [0071] through [0074] as disclosing
these features (Ans. 4-5 and 8-9). However, we agree with Appellants that
none of the cited portions of DeSilva discloses that the disposition of a shift
swap request is determined based on the application of hard and soft

2
The Examiner states, as grounds of rejection, that “[c]laims 1-7, 9-18, and
20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 102(e) as being anticipated by DeSilva
. . . ” (Ans. 4). We interpret the Examiner’s statement as an inadvertent
error inasmuch as the Examiner applies DeSilva to each of pending
claims 1-20.
Appeal 2011-009932
Application 11/540,320

4
constraints. Instead, DeSilva only discloses the application of hard and soft
constraints with respect to the schedule optimization process 120 described
in paragraphs [0041] through [0051] of DeSilva with reference to Figure 3.
As shown in Figure 3, a plurality of alternative schedules are
generated from an initial schedule and iteratively processed and scored using
hard and soft constraints (See DeSilva, paras. [0042] – [0048] and Fig. 3).
After alternative schedules have been generated and scored for all resources,
an optimized schedule is selected based on the computed “penalty” scores
(DeSilva, paras. [0048] and [0049]).
In paragraphs [0071] through [0074], DeSilva describes a shift
swapping messaging step (step 135 in Figure 1) that is performed after the
optimized schedule has been selected (step 125 in Figure 1). However, we
find nothing in those paragraphs (or in any of the other cited paragraphs of
DeSilva on which the Examiner relies) that discloses that hard and soft
constraints are applied to the shift swap request.
Instead, DeSilva describes, with reference to Figure 8, that the system
identifies potential swap candidates (in step 815), for a selected shift
(DeSilva, para. [0071]), from which a user selects one or more candidates to
whom to a message offering a shift swap is sent (DeSilva, para. [0072]).
Only if a positive response is received, the shift swap message is sent to a
supervisor, manager, or other administrator for approval, and a message is
subsequently sent to the user indicating whether the swap was approved
(DeSilva, para. [0073] – [0074])
DeSilva teaches that the shift swap is conditioned on whether a
contacted swap candidate accepts or rejects the shift swap offer, and whether
the accepted shift swap offer is approved by an administrator. However, we
Appeal 2011-009932
Application 11/540,320

5
find nothing in the cited paragraphs of DeSilva that teaches “applying a set
of criteria associated with a hard validation rule to the partial shift swap
request” and “applying a set of criteria associated with a soft validation rule
to a partial shift swap request,” as recited in claim 1.
Therefore, we will not sustain the Examiner’s rejection of claim 1
under 35 U.S.C. § 102(e). We also will not sustain the Examiner’s rejection
of dependent claims 2-10.
Independent claim 11 and dependent claims 12-20
Independent claim 11 includes language substantially similar to the
language of claim 1. Therefore, we will not sustain the rejection of claim 11
under 35 U.S.C. § 102(e) for the same reasons as set forth above with
respect to claim 1. We also will not sustain the Examiner’s rejection of
dependent claims 12-20.

DECISION
The Examiner’s rejection of claims 1-20 under 35 U.S.C. § 102(e) is
reversed.

REVERSED

ELD