Ex Parte Tolve et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Jun 28, 2016

11710341 (P.T.A.B. Jun. 28, 2016)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
111710,341 02/23/2007 Frank J. Tolve
32896 7590 06/29/2016
THE LAW OFFICE OF ANTHONY M. PALAZZOLO JR.
285 PENDLETON HILL ROAD
NORTH STONINGTON, CT 06359
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.
INQ/101/US 4359
EXAMINER
CASLER, TRACI
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
3629
MAILDATE DELIVERY MODE
06/29/2016 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 FRANK J. TOLVE and GREG HENSON
Appeal2013-003529
Application 11/710,341
Technology Center 3600
Before HUBERT C. LORIN, BIBHU R. MOHANTY, and
NINA L. MEDLOCK, 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--4 and 7-28, which are all the claims pending in the
application. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
SUMMARY OF THE DECISION
WeAFFRIM.
Appeal2013-003529
Application 11/710,341
THE INVENTION
The Appellants' claimed invention is directed to systems and methods
for employment recruiting (Spec., para. 1 ). Claim 1, reproduced below, is
representative of the subject matter on appeal.
1. A computerized employment recruiting system
compnsmg:
a CASE database of job definitions corresponding to
respective job offerings of at least one prospective employer,
wherein each of the job definitions comprises a unique set of
questions having question-independent subject-level job criteria
for a respective job offering,
and wherein each question prompts a job seeker for question-
independent subject-level qualification-answers that correspond
to the question-independent subject-level job criteria of the
question;
a workforce-database of individual profiles, each of the
profiles comprising question-independent subject-level
individual qualification-answers that correspond to respective
question-independent subject-level job criteria of the CASE
database questions;
a communications port for user access to the system,
wherein the job definition questions are presented to at least
one individual via the communications port, and wherein the
question-independent subject-level individual qualification-
answers are received from the at
least one individual via the communications port; and
an application server hosting an information manager that
interacts with the CASE database, the workforce-database and
the communications port, the information manager comprising
a subsystem for a bi-directional subject-level matching between
the question-independent subject-level job criteria of the CASE
database and the question-independent subject-level job
qualification-answers of the workforce-database and for passing
information and queries through the communications port.
2
Appeal2013-003529
Application 11/710,341
THE REJECTIONS
The following rejections are before us for review:
1. Claims 1, 2, 19, and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) as
anticipated by www.inqhire.com retrieved from archive.org on October 31,
2004 (hereinafter "inqhire.com of Oct. 31, 2004").
2. Claims 3, 4 and 21-27 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
unpatentable over inqhire.com of Oct. 31, 2004 (as applied above) further in
view of McGovern (US 2006/0229902 Al, pub. Oct. 12, 2006).
FINDINGS OF FACT
We have determined that the findings of fact in the Analysis section
below are supported at least by a preponderance of the evidence. 1
ANALYSIS
The Appellants first argue that the rejection of claim 1 under
35 U.S.C. § 102(b) is improper because the cited prior art inqhire.com of
Oct. 31, 2004 does not disclose the claim limitations for:
each of the job definitions compris[ing] a unique set of questions
having question independent subject-level job criteria [and that]
each question prompts a job seeker for question-independent
subject-level qualification-answers that correspond to the
question-independent subject-level job criteria of the question.
(App. Br. 8-12). The Appellants also argue that the inqhire.com of Oct. 31,
2004 reference is not an enabling disclosure (App. Br. 12-14). The
Appellants have provided Declarations of Francis J. Tolve and Greg Henson
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
Appeal2013-003529
Application 11/710,341
which makes distinctions between the inqhire.com of Oct. 31, 2004
reference and that of an inqhire.com reference from Oct. 16, 2006.
In contrast, the Examiner has determined that the argued claim
limitations are found in the inqhire.com of Oct. 31, 2004 reference and that
the rejection of record under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) is proper (Ans. 7-12).
We agree with the Examiner. The argued claim limitations require
"each of the job definitions compris[ing] a unique set of questions having
question independent subject level job criteria" and that "each question
prompts a job seeker for question-independent subject-level qualification-
answers that correspond to the question-independent subject-level job
criteria of the question".
Here the argued claim limitations are disclosed by the cited reference
in the "How do you go about building unique questionnaires for your
clients?" section, as well as the following two sections (inqhire.com of Oct.
31, 2004, page 4, labeled as "Page 1 of 3" at top of page). This section
discloses that job requirements are translated into questions to probe
applicants. Here, the presentation of these questions to the job applicants for
their answers serves as the prompting for the claimed answers. Here, the
argued claim limitations are shown by the cited prior art to the extent
argued. A statement that merely points out what a claim recites will not be
considered an argument for separate patentability of the claim. 37 C.F.R.
§ 41.37(c)(l)(iv).
The Appellants next argue that the inqhire.com of Oct. 31, 2004
reference is not enabling, and have provided the Declarations of
Francis J. Tolve and Greg Henson in support of this assertion. We have
reviewed the cited reference in light of the Declarations and Exhibits filed,
4
Appeal2013-003529
Application 11/710,341
but do not find these arguments persuasive. For example, the Declarations,
each at paragraph 5, state that the elements of the argued claim limitation
could not have been described in the inqhire.com of Oct. 31, 2004 reference,
but the citations above disclose the argued claim elements despite these
assertions. Here, a review of the Declarations does not find them persuasive.
Here, the cited reference of inqhire.com of Oct. 31, 2004 is considered
enabled to the extent necessary to support the rejection of record. For these
above reasons, the rejection of claim 1 is sustained. The Appellants have
provided the same arguments for the remaining claims, and the rejection of
these claims is sustained for the same reasons given above.
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
We conclude that Appellants have not shown that the Examiner erred
in rejecting the claims as listed in the Rejections section above.
DECISION
The Examiner's rejection of claims 1--4 and 7-28 is sustained.
AFFIRMED
5