Ex Parte Dane et alDownload PDFPatent Trial and Appeal BoardJan 30, 201710655572 (P.T.A.B. Jan. 30, 2017) 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. 10/655,572 09/04/2003 Mark Dane CAM920125006USl_8150-0377 6428 52021 7590 02/01/2017 Cuenot, Forsythe & Kim, LLC 20283 State Road 7 Ste. 300 Boca Raton, EL 33498 EXAMINER MCCORMICK, GABRIELLE A ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 3629 NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE 02/01/2017 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): ibmptomail@iplawpro.com PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07) UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD Ex parte MARK DANE and BELA A. LABOVITCH Appeal 2014-007128 Application 10/655,572 Technology Center 3600 Before ANTON W. FETTING, BIBHU R. MOHANTY, and BRUCE T. WIEDER, Administrative Patent Judges. FETTING, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL STATEMENT OF THE CASE1 Mark Dane and Bela A. Labovitch (Appellants) seek review under 35 U.S.C. § 134 of a final rejection of claims 1—5, 7, 8, and 10—25, the only claims pending in the application on appeal. We have jurisdiction over the appeal pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). The Appellants invented a tool for recruitment process management. Specification 2:3—4. 1 Our decision will make reference to the Appellants’ Appeal Brief (“App. Br.,” filed February 26, 2014) and Reply Brief (“Reply Br.,” filed June 12, Appeal 2014-007128 Application 10/655,572 An understanding of the invention can be derived from a reading of exemplary claim 1, which is reproduced below (bracketed matter and some paragraphing added). 1. A method for managing recruiting information in an online computer-based management system, the method comprising acts of: [1] receiving, via a recruitment process management system executing on one or more computing devices, from a first client, a first job description corresponding to a first job opening at the first client, the first job description comprising a first set of components of the recruitment process management system, the first set of components comprising at least one first client information logic component of the recruitment process management system for accessing a database for client-related information of the first client providing the first job opening; [2] storing, by the recruitment process management system, the first set of components in the database as at least one object-oriented object, wherein the database is configured as an object hierarchy including a plurality of interrelated objects; [3] creating, via the recruitment process management system, 2014), and the Examiner’s Answer (“Ans.,” mailed April 15, 2014), and Final Action (“Final Act.,” mailed September 26, 2013). 2 Appeal 2014-007128 Application 10/655,572 by a second client, interactively with a requirements specialist during a job description development process, a second job description based upon the first job description, the second job description corresponding to a second job opening of the second client and having a second set of components, wherein creating the second job description includes receiving, via the recruitment process management system during the job description development process by the requirements specialist working interactively via the recruitment process management system with the second client, a selection of a job title corresponding to a job title object and an industry corresponding to an industry object from the database; [4] identifying, via the recruitment process management system, a plurality of function objects stored in the database based on the selection of the job title object and the industry object, wherein the database is configured as an object hierarchy such that only function objects that correspond to the selected job title object and industry object are identified and wherein at least one of the function objects identified is a function object created by the first client for inclusion in the first job description; [5] receiving, via the recruitment process management system, 3 Appeal 2014-007128 Application 10/655,572 a selection of a function corresponding to a function object from the identified function objects; and [6] generating, via the recruitment process management system, the second job description based on the information corresponding to the selected job title, the selected industry, and the selected function; displaying the generated second job description at a second client system corresponding to the second client and a recruitment specialist system corresponding to the requirements specialist, wherein the second client system and the recruitment specialist system are communicating with one another via the recruitment process management system. The Examiner relies upon the following prior art: Claims 1—5, 7, 8, 10, 11, 17, 18, and 23—25 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Roy, Danielsen, Almog, and Balabine. Claims 12—16 and 19-22 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Roy, Danielsen, and Balabine. and Balabine US 5,937,406 Almog US 2002/0002479 A1 Roy US 2002/0069080 A1 Danielsen US 6,993,723 B1 Aug. 10, 1999 Jan. 3, 2002 June 6, 2002 Jan. 31, 2006 4 Appeal 2014-007128 Application 10/655,572 ISSUES The issues of obviousness turn primarily on whether the claims recite a client or an employer, the scope of the creation process, the meaning of a function object, and whether Danielsen’s description of the advantages of groupware for document processing is sufficient to render it analogous to the problem of creating a job description by a group. FACTS PERTINENT TO THE ISSUES The following enumerated Findings of Fact (FF) are believed to be supported by a preponderance of the evidence. Facts Related to Claim Construction 01. The disclosure contains no lexicographic definition of “function object.” Facts Related to Appellants ’ Disclosure 02. The Specification contains no instance of the phrase “function object,” but does describe a “functions object.” Specification 17:20-23; Fig. 4:408. 03. Appellants cite Specification page 16, lines 1—13 and page 17, lines 9-24 as describing a function object. App. Br. 3:9-17. The description of a functions object is within this recited portion. 04. The Specification and Figure 4 describe an exemplary functions object as a two field record containing a JobFunctionID index field and a JobFunction text field. Specification 17:20-23; Fig. 4:408. 5 Appeal 2014-007128 Application 10/655,572 Facts Related to the Prior Art Roy 05. Roy is directed to an improved system for the cataloging, inventorying, selecting, measuring, valuing and matching Intellectual Capital, and matching or inquiring of an individual’s skills, and particularly to finding candidates for an employment or consulting position having requisite skills, and more particularly to creating a searchable knowledge base of individuals skills indexed in a hierarchical cataloging, measuring and valuation system. Roy para. 3. 06. Roy describes establishing a hierarchical list of defined skills, wherein a portion of each of the defined skills is reflected in each level of said hierarchical list; assigning an alphanumeric symbol to each of the defined skills to create an Intellectual Capital code for the defined skill; receiving a set of submitted skills, wherein the set of submitted skills contains at least one of the defined skills in the hierarchical list; identifying the Intellectual Capital code corresponding to the defined skill in the set of submitted skills; adding at least one weighting factor to at least one of the identified Intellectual Capital codes; and storing the identified Intellectual Capital codes and the weighting factors for the skill set in a data source. The set of submitted skills may comprise an individual skills inventory or a position requirement set for a job position. Roy para. 12. 6 Appeal 2014-007128 Application 10/655,572 07. Roy describes a hierarchical skill cataloging system with a skills catalog that contains a hierarchical list of defined skills of five levels, viz., CLASS, KNOWLEDGE GROUP, SKILL GROUP, SKILL SET, and SKILLS. Roy para. 17. Class corresponds to industry. Roy para. 19. 08. Roy describes Intellectual Capital codes as being used to create an inventory of skills for each individual, which would be comprised of all of the Intellectual capital codes that represent the defined skills belonging to that individual. The Intellectual Capital codes can also be used to create a set of position requirements for a job position, or a set of criteria generally to be used by employers looking for a particular type of candidate. Roy para. 38. 09. Roy describes a recruiting business directly matching the skills needed by a job opening to skills that a job seeker holds. Roy para. 41. 10. Roy describes a client, e.g. an employer using a recruiter that participates in the system looking for job candidates, who submits their position information in a similar manner and receives a similar results page. The results will display by percentage the prospects that match the job by Intellectual Capital Codes. By clicking one of the results, the client can see exactly what skills the prospect has and what skills match. The client will have the ability to edit the position skills, adding or deleting skills as needed. The client will also have the option of submitting a 7 Appeal 2014-007128 Application 10/655,572 prospect information request to the responsible recruiter — using email for example. Roy para. 134. 11. Roy describes both clients and prospects as remotely entering their starting information on the Web site without recruiter intervention. After that, preferably the recruiter will control their entries. The recruiter will be notified by email and they will make the final decision whether the job is approved or deleted. Roy para. 145. Almog 12. Almog is directed to providing employment information and particularly to on-line automatic systems for providing career management services and employment information. Almog para. 1. 13. Almog describes an employer entering a position description and/or a salary range and a server suggesting requirements for such position, based on other job-opening records, other worker records and/or previous job openings posted by that employer. Almog para. 111. Danielsen 14. Danielsen is directed to electronic, collaborative work tools. Danielsen 1:7—9. 15. Danielsen describes the term “Groupware” as referring to computer-mediated collaboration that increases the productivity or functionality of person-to-person processes. Groupware services 8 Appeal 2014-007128 Application 10/655,572 can include the sharing of calendars, collective writing, e-mail handling, shared database access, electronic meetings with each person able to see and display information, and other activities. A taxonomy of collaborative tools will include desktop video and real-time data conferencing (synchronous), non real-time data conferencing (asynchronous), group document handling, workflow and workgroup utilities, development tools groupware frameworks, groupware services, groupware applications and collaborative, internet-based applications and products. Danielsen 4:50-64. 16. Danielsen describes the advantage of group functionality as allowing for a structured organization of users. It also increases security by restricting access between the client users. Danielsen 5:14—16. Balabine 17. Balabine is directed to accessing information in a database. Balabine 1:9-10. 18. Balabine describes an object-oriented database (OODB) as a collection of “objects”— software elements that contain both data and rules for manipulating that data. In contrast to a relational database which can store only character-type data, an OODB can store data of virtually any type. An OODB stores its constituent objects in a hierarchy of classes with associated rules so that the OODB contains much of the logic it needs to do useful work. Balabine 1:41—52. 9 Appeal 2014-007128 Application 10/655,572 ANALYSIS We are not persuaded by Appellants’ argument as to the limitation of “creating, via the recruitment process management system, by a second client, interactively with a requirements specialist during a job description development process, a second job description based upon the first job description,” that [pjaragraph [0145] [of Roy] teaches "Both clients and prospects will be able to remotely enter their starting information on the Web site without recruiter intervention, however after that preferably the recruiter will control their entries" (emphasis added). As taught by Roy, the entries are created without intervention and then the entries are subsequently controlled by the recruiter. Nothing in paragraph [0145] teaches the claimed interactive creation of a second job description, as claimed. Roy's teaching that the control of an entry is passed from a client/prospect to a recruiter does not correspond to the interactive creation of a job description, as claimed. App. Br. 18—19. Appellants contend that because the client enters the starting information without recruiter intervention, the creation of the second job description is by the client without recruiter intervention. The problem with this argument is that the scope of the creation process is not recited or narrowed, nor is its implementation. The limitation recites it is the job description that is created, not the data entered for the job description. Thus, the job description is created when the content becomes a job description. Roy describes the recruiter controlling entries for the job description after the initial data entry. Thus, both the client and recruiter participate interactively in creating the job description. We are not persuaded by Appellants’ argument that “[t]he Examiner relies upon Daniels[e]n to teach a collaboration system. However, 10 Appeal 2014-007128 Application 10/655,572 Daniels[e]n is nonanalogous prior art that cannot be applied against the claimed invention.” App. Br. 19. Danielsen describes the advantage of using groupware for group processes as allowing for a structured organization and security of users, and describes collaboration of document handling as among its exemplary uses. The Examiner applies Danielsen only to show it was known to apply such group collaboration software in the context of handling job descriptions, which are documents. Thus, Danielsen explicitly describes the advantages of its teachings in the context of document handling, of which both Roy and the claims at issue recite a subset of handling job descriptions. We are not persuaded by Appellants’ argument that merely editing a first job description does not correspond to the claimed second job description and the second job description is for a different job. App. Br. 22. Importantly, in arguing against the Examiner’s reasoning for finding that creating a second job description using objects from a first, Appellants omit the most common sense reason, that of efficiently creating job descriptions that use consistent terminology. Final Act. 4. Anyone who ever drafted standard forms for corporations, such as job descriptions, policies and procedures, or travel forms, quickly learned the adage of not reinventing the wheel. If someone did it before, best to copy and fine tune to the current circumstance. Appellants’ contention that the Examiner’s reasoning that creating a revised job description in order increases a pool of suitable applicants, id., is premised on the second job description being for a different job. App. Br. 22. Well, perhaps. The claims recite a second job opening of a second client. Certainly it is a different job posting. But the claims do not narrow 11 Appeal 2014-007128 Application 10/655,572 or specify the scope of a client. The second client could very well be another party hiring for the same organization as the first client who needs to hire additional personnel. Such a circumstance is at least predictable with the known turn-over and delegation powers of supervisory personnel with hiring authority. For similar reasons, we are not persuaded by Appellants’ argument that As claimed, the second job description corresponds to a second job by a second client. Referring to paragraph [0111], Almog teaches suggesting requirements based upon "worker records and/or previous job openings posted by that employer." Therefore, the suggestions are made based upon a same employer - not a different employer, as claimed. The Examiner's analysis does not appreciate this difference. App. Br. 23. Also see similar argument, id. at 24. Appellants do not appreciate that the claim recites a client rather than an employer. We are not persuaded by Appellants’ argument that Roy fails to rely on title in performing a search. Id. at 26. The limitation at issue is that of “receiving ... a selection of a function corresponding to a function object from the identified function objects.” Claim 1 limitation 5. Appellants’ disclosure shows an example of just such a function object as no more than a textual description of a function code assigned to a job task under a job title. Thus, it is no more than a textual description of what a particular task for a given title entails. As anyone whoever went through a hiring process is aware, the job description is essentially a document organized to describe such tasks so candidates are aware of what is expected. Therefore, providing a list and receiving a selection from that list of existing task descriptions was at least predictable for the reasons the Examiner cited supra. 12 Appeal 2014-007128 Application 10/655,572 Beyond that, Roy explicitly recites codifying defined skills with codes and textual descriptions in a hierarchical database. The set of submitted skills may comprise an individual skills inventory or a position requirement set for a job position. Thus, the skills present an alias for the task or function performed by a task. Appellants argue all of the claims based on claim 1. CONCLUSIONS OF LAW The rejection of claims 1—5, 7, 8, 10, 11, 17, 18, and 23—25 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Roy, Danielsen, Almog, and Balabine is proper. The rejection of claims 12—16 and 19—22 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Roy, Danielsen, and Balabine is proper. DECISION The rejection of claims 1—5, 7, 8, and 10—25 is affirmed. No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a). See 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a)(l)(iv) (2011). AFFIRMED 13 Copy with citationCopy as parenthetical citation