Ex Parte Dane et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Jan 30, 2017

10655572 (P.T.A.B. Jan. 30, 2017)

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