Ex Parte Clawson

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Sep 26, 2012

10255901 (P.T.A.B. Sep. 26, 2012)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
____________________

BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
____________________

Ex parte JEFFREY J. CLAWSON
____________________

Appeal 2011-005304
Application 10/255,901
Technology Center 3600
____________________
Before, ANTON W. FETTING, KEVIN F. TURNER, and
MEREDITH C. PETRAVICK, Administrative Patent Judges.

TURNER, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL

STATEMENT OF CASE1
Appellant appeals under 35 U.S.C. § 134 from a rejection of claims
24, 25, and 27-49. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We REVERSE.

1 Our decision will make reference to the Appellant’s Appeal Brief (“App.
Br.,” filed June 7, 2010) and Reply Brief (“Reply Br.,” November 15, 2010),
and the Examiner’s Answer (“Ans.,” mailed September 15, 2010).
Appeal 2011-005304
Application No. 10/255,901

2
THE INVENTION
Appellant’s disclosure relates to a method and system for receiving,
processing, responding, and managing firefighter request calls. (Abs.)
Claim 24, reproduced below, is illustrative of the claimed subject
matter:
24. A method for managing the process of dispatching
firefighters in response to calls for assistance, comprising the
steps of:
[A] providing instructions to a dispatcher on a medium readable
by the dispatcher, said instructions adapted for use by the
dispatcher in receiving a call from a caller for firefighter
assistance regarding an incident, wherein said instructions
comprise a logical tree comprising pre-scripted inquiries, and
wherein said logical tree is traversable using caller responses to
said pre-scripted inquiries;
[B] automatically assigning a determinate value to said incident
by traversing said logical tree, wherein assigning said
determinate value comprises,
[B.1] automatically determining a type of said incident
by traversing a first branch of said logical tree,
[B.2] automatically determining a criticality of said
incident by traversing one of a plurality of second branches of
said logical tree, wherein said second branch is selected based
on said incident type,
[B.3] wherein said traversing of said first branch provides
for automatically determining if the caller is in danger and,
upon determining that the caller is in danger, traversing to a
critical caller branch of said logical tree, wherein the critical
caller branch comprises, pre-scripted instructions directing the
dispatcher to,
[B.3.1] inquire if the caller is entrapped,
[B.3.2] inquire as to the location of the caller,
[B.3.3] instruct the caller to safety if safe to do so, and
Appeal 2011-005304
Application No. 10/255,901

3
[B.3.4] resume traversing said logical tree; and
[C] directing a dispatch of firefighter assistance based on said
determinate value.
(App. Br., Claims Appendix 44-45, annotations added.)

PRIOR ART REJECTION
The prior art reference relied upon by the Examiner in rejecting the
claims is:
Wendy Best, 999 United Emergency Services Share Life-Saving Role
to Boost Response, Western Daily Press, May 27, 1999, at 18 (hereinafter,
“Best”).

The Examiner rejected claims 24, 25, and 27-49 under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a) as being unpatentable over Best.

ISSUE2
The issue is whether the Examiner established a prima facie showing
of obviousness in rejecting claims 24, 25, and 27-49 under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a) as unpatentable over Best.

2 We have considered in this decision only those arguments that Appellant
actually raised in the Briefs. Arguments which Appellant could have made
but chose not to make in the Briefs are deemed to be waived. See 37 C.F.R.
§ 41.37(c)(1)(vii).
Appeal 2011-005304
Application No. 10/255,901

4
FINDINGS OF FACT
1. Best is an article which describes fire and police officers
responding to ambulance calls based on proximity and a new emergency
response service system which allows emergency operators to prioritize
ambulance responses. (P. 1, ¶¶ 1-4 and 16.)
2. Best describes that “if we have a life-threatening call and the
nearest ambulance is further away than the nearest fire engine or police, then
one of these will be sent as well as the nearest ambulance.” (P. 1, ¶ 8.)
3. Best describes that “[a] computer system called Advanced Medical
Priority Despatch allows operators to ask specific questions of callers and
their answers assessed to prioritise ambulance response” [sic]. (P. 1, ¶ 16.)
4. Best describes that “the computer would give the designated
response and the operators could not change or replace any of the
questions.” (P. 2, ¶ 2.)

ANALYSIS
Claims 24, 25, and 27-49 rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Best.
We are persuaded by the Appellant’s arguments that the Examiner
erred in finding that one of ordinary skill in the art would have been led by
Best to the method for managing the process of dispatching firefighters in
response to calls for assistance of claim 24. (App. Br. 11-23.) Specifically,
we agree with Appellant that Best does not teach or otherwise suggest
limitations B.1, B.2, and B.3 above, which in part require automatically
determining a type and criticality of incident by traversing a first and second
Appeal 2011-005304
Application No. 10/255,901

5
branch of a logical tree, respectively. (App. Br. 17-21.) Claim 48 is
substantially similar.
In finding claims 24 and 48 obvious, the Examiner broadly relies upon
Best to teach an emergency response service system which allows
emergency operators to prioritize emergency responses (FF 1, 2), but fails to
specifically address any determination made by traversing at least a first and
second branch. (See Ans. 3-6.) Apparently recognizing this deficiency in
response to the Appellant’s argument, the Examiner concludes that since
Best is able to send either a fire truck or ambulance based upon proximity,
Best discloses a decision tree with branches. (Ans. 10; See also FF 2.) We
cannot agree.
While the Examiner may be correct that Best generally suggests a
logical tree (i.e., decision tree), we cannot agree with the Examiner that Best
teaches or suggests using the logical tree having the recited branches, as
presently recited by independent claims 24 and 48. Specifically, we find
nothing in Best’s limited disclosure supports the Examiner’s conclusion
above. Therefore, without any explanation by the Examiner as to how a
branch for a fire truck and a branch for an ambulance correspond to a first
branch for automatically determining a type of incident and a second branch
for automatically determining a criticality of the incident, we agree with
Appellant that the Examiner has failed to show that Best renders obvious at
least limitations B.1, B.2, and B.3 above, as recited by independent claims
24 and 48.
Accordingly, in the absence of any articulated reasoning or Examiner
rationale for why one of ordinary skill in the art would modify the
Appeal 2011-005304
Application No. 10/255,901

6
emergency response system disclosed by Best to perform limitations B.1,
B.2, and B.3 above, we cannot sustain the Examiner’s obviousness rejection
of independent claims 24 and 48. See In re Kahn, 441 F.3d 977, 988 (Fed.
Cir. 2006) (“rejections on obviousness grounds cannot be sustained by mere
conclusory statements; instead, there must be some articulated reasoning
with some rational underpinning to support the legal conclusion of
obviousness”); In re Oetiker, 977 F.2d 1443, 1448 (Fed. Cir. 1992) (to
support the conclusion that the claimed combination is directed to obvious
subject matter, either the references must expressly or impliedly suggest the
claimed combination or the examiner must present a convincing line of
reasoning as to why the artisan would have found the claimed invention to
have been obvious in light of the teachings of the references); KSR Int'l Co.
v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 418 (2007) (“[t]o facilitate review, this
analysis should be made explicit”).
Accordingly, because the Examiner has not met the initial burden of
setting forth a proper case of prima facie obviousness, we will not sustain
the Examiner’s rejection of independent claims 24 and 48, or dependent
claims 25, and 27-47, and 49. See Oetiker, 977 F.2d at 1445.

CONCLUSION
We conclude that the Examiner failed to establish a prima facie
showing of obviousness in rejecting claims 24, 25, and 27-49 under 35
U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Best.

Appeal 2011-005304
Application No. 10/255,901

7
DECISION
We reverse the Examiner’s rejection of claims 24, 25, and 27-49
under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a).
REVERSED