Ex Parte Aquila et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Nov 28, 2016

13118266 (P.T.A.B. Nov. 28, 2016)

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.
13/118,266 05/27/2011 Anthony Aquila 13CN-161224 9222
30764 7590 11/30/2016
SHEPPARD, MULLIN, RICHTER & HAMPTON LLP
12275 EL CAMINO REAL, SUITE 200
SAN DIEGO, CA 92130
EXAMINER
MISIASZEK, AMBER ALTSCHUL
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
3624
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
11/30/2016 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):
DOCKETING@ SHEPPARDMULLIN.COM
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte ANTHONY AQUILA, EDWARD L. SCHRENK,
PATRICK COLE, THOMAS LYONS, DAVID GRIFFIN, MIKE MARSH,
CHRISTIAN HASSOLD, FREDERICK C. FISHER, and
CARLOS PORTAL
Appeal 2014-008338
Application 13/118,2661
Technology Center 3600
Before JOSEPH A. FISCHETTI, KEVIN W. CHERRY, and
ROBERT J. SILVERMAN, Administrative Patent Judges.
SILVERMAN, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
The Appellants appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Examiner’s
decision rejecting claims 1, 3—10, 12—17, 19, and 20. We have jurisdiction
under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We REVERSE.
1 According to the Appellants, the real party in interest is Mitchell
International, Inc. Appeal Br. 1.
Appeal 2014-008338
Application 13/118,266
ILLUSTRATIVE CLAIM
1. A computer-implemented method of collecting
customer satisfaction information and generating a customer
satisfaction index score, the method comprising:
providing a customer with a customer satisfaction survey
regarding a service provider that has provided service to the
customer, the customer satisfaction survey containing a
plurality of questions regarding the service provided, the
customer satisfaction survey being stored on a computer
system;
receiving answers to the plurality of questions;
generating a customer satisfaction index score for the
service provider based on the received answers;
transmitting the customer satisfaction index score to a
system that assigns an insurance claim to an assignee, the
system using the customer satisfaction index score to determine
a potential assignee to whom to assign the insurance claim; and
notifying the service provider or an insurance carrier of
the receipt of the customer satisfaction survey when a
composite index score calculated for the customer satisfaction
survey will negatively affect the customer satisfaction index
score of the service provider.
REJECTION
Claims 1, 3—10, 12—17, 19, and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C.
§ 102(e) as anticipated by Loveland (US 6,810,383 Bl, iss. Oct. 26, 2004).
FINDINGS OF FACT
The findings of fact relied upon, which are supported by a
preponderance of the evidence, appear in the following Analysis.
2
Appeal 2014-008338
Application 13/118,266
ANALYSIS
Independent claim 1 recites, in part:
notifying the service provider or an insurance carrier of
the receipt of the customer satisfaction survey when a
composite index score calculated for the customer satisfaction
survey will negatively affect the customer satisfaction index
score of the service provider.
According to the Examiner, Loveland teaches “that an assignor,
owner or other party will be notified if the service provider has a violation
and that the service provider’s performance record or quality rating may be
adjusted accordingly.” Answer 4.
However, the Examiner does not identify any disclosure in Loveland
that purportedly teaches “notifying” anyone (let alone a “service provider or
an insurance carrier,” as claimed) about “the receipt of [a] customer
satisfaction survey” that would “negatively affect the customer satisfaction
index score of the service provider,” as set forth in claim 1. See Reply Br.
4-5.
“Because the hallmark of anticipation is prior invention, the prior art
reference — in order to anticipate under 35 U.S.C. § 102 — must not only
disclose all elements of the claim within the four comers of the document,
but must also disclose those elements ‘arranged as in the claim.’” Net
MoneyIN, Inc. v. VeriSign, Inc., 545 F.3d 1359, 1369 (Fed. Cir. 2008)
(quoting Connell v. Sears, Roebuck & Co., 722 F.2d 1542, 1548 (Fed. Cir.
1983)). Loveland does not satisfy this requirement, in regard to the
limitation of claim 1 identified above, and therefore does not anticipate the
claim.
3
Appeal 2014-008338
Application 13/118,266
The other independent claims, claims 10 and 17, contain limitations
similar to the one discussed above, in claim 1 (see Appeal Br. 15—16, 17—18
(Claims App.)) and are not anticipated by Loveland for reasons similar to
what is discussed above.
Therefore, the rejection of claims 1, 3—10, 12—17, 19, and 20 under 35
U.S.C. § 102(e) is not sustained.
DECISION
We REVERSE the Examiner’s decision rejecting claims 1, 3—10, 12—
17, 19, and 20 under 35 U.S.C. § 102(e).
REVERSED
4