Ex Parte Aquila et alDownload PDFPatent Trial and Appeal BoardNov 28, 201613118266 (P.T.A.B. Nov. 28, 2016) Copy Citation 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 Copy with citationCopy as parenthetical citation