Ex Parte Karakey et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Nov 16, 2016

13038306 (P.T.A.B. Nov. 16, 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.
13/038,306 03/01/2011 Buddy George Karakey BEI.01USU1 8563
27479 7590 11/16/2016
COCHRAN FREUND & YOUNG LLC
2026 CARIBOU DR
SUITE 201
FORT COLLINS, CO 80525
EXAMINER
ANDERSON, FOLASHADE
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
3623
MAIL DATE DELIVERY MODE
11/16/2016 PAPER
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.
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
____________

BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
____________

Ex parte BUDDY GEORGE KARAKEY, WESTON MCARTOR,
GREGORY SCOTT MOSELEY, MATTHEW JOHN PETERS,
GUY V. WORZEL SR., and STEVEN R. SHARKEY
____________

Appeal 2014-0099221
Application 13/038,3062
Technology Center 3600
____________

Before MURRIEL E. CRAWFORD, NINA L. MEDLOCK, and
TARA L. HUTCHINGS, Administrative Patent Judges.

MEDLOCK, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL

STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Appellants appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Examiner’s final
rejection of claims 1–20. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We REVERSE.

1 Our decision references Appellants’ Appeal Brief (“Br.,” filed May 12,
2014) and the Examiner’s Answer (“Ans.,” mailed July 2, 2014) and Final
Office Action (“Final Act.,” mailed November 4, 2013).
2 Appellants identify Business Equipment Information Services, Inc. as the
real party in interest. Br. 4.
Appeal 2014-009922
Application 13/038,306

2
CLAIMED INVENTION
Appellants’ claimed invention relates to “a computerized method for
optimally assigning service territories to a service technician” (Spec. ¶ 3).
Claims 1 and 16 are the independent claims on appeal. Claim 1,
reproduced below, is illustrative:
1. A computerized method for optimally assigning
service territories to a service technician comprising:
providing access to a database stored on computer
readable media by a computer system, said database containing
geographic location data, unit type data, historical usage data,
and historical repair data for each serviceable unit of a plurality
of serviceable units, said database further containing historical
repair success data and historical repair time data for each service
technician of a plurality of service technicians;
selecting by said computer system a territory geographic
area of interest;
selecting by said computer system a subset of serviceable
units from said plurality of serviceable units stored in said
database such that said subset of serviceable units contains
serviceable units of said plurality of serviceable units that have
said geographic location data located within said territory
geographic area of interest;
selecting by said computer system a service technician
from said plurality of service technicians stored in said database;
calculating by said computer system an aggregated
technician demand time as a function of said unit type data of
said selected subset of serviceable units, said historical usage
data for each serviceable unit of said selected subset of
serviceable units, said historical repair data for each serviceable
unit of said selected subset of serviceable units, said historical
repair success data for said selected service technician, and said
historical repair time data for said service technician stored in
said database;
recalculating said aggregated technician demand time by
said computer system dynamically if characteristics of said
territory geographic area of interest change; and
Appeal 2014-009922
Application 13/038,306

3
displaying results of said calculations and said
recalculations dynamically as said calculations and said
recalculations are performed to a user.

REJECTIONS
Claims 1–4, 9, and 14–20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
unpatentable over Zhong (US 7,840,319 B2, iss. Nov. 23, 2010) and Bernard
(US 2009/0319572 A1, pub. Dec. 24, 2009).
Claims 5 and 10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable
over Zhong, Bernard, and Wilson (US 7,464,046 B2, iss. Dec. 9, 2008).
Claims 6–8 and 11–13 rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
unpatentable over Zhong, Bernard, and Glovitz (US 5,682,421, iss. Oct. 28,
1997).

ANALYSIS
Independent Claim 1 and Dependent Claims 2–4, 9, 14, and 15
We are persuaded by Appellants’ argument that the Examiner erred in
rejecting independent claim 1 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) at least because
neither Zhong nor Bernard, individually or in combination, discloses or
suggests
calculating by said computer system an aggregated technician
demand time as a function of said unit type data of said selected
subset of serviceable units, said historical usage data for each
serviceable unit of said selected subset of serviceable units, said
historical repair data for each serviceable unit of said selected
subset of serviceable units, said historical repair success data for
said selected service technician, and said historical repair time
data for said service technician stored in said database[,]
as recited in claim 1 (Br. 18–24).
Appeal 2014-009922
Application 13/038,306

4
In rejecting claim 1 under § 103(a), the Examiner takes the position
that Zhong discloses substantially all of the limitations of claim 1 (Final
Act. 8–10). The Examiner concedes that Zhong “does not teach that the
service of his disclosure is a repair service” (id. at 10). But the Examiner
asserts that “the types of algorithms disclosed by Zhong are applicable to
assigning repair technicians to repair service routes/territories based on
historical information as evidenced for example in the analogous teachings
of Bernard” (id. at 10–11 (citing Bernard ¶¶ 14, 20)). And the Examiner
concludes that it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the
art at the time of Appellants’ invention “to include [in] the invention of
Zhong the repair data as taught by Bernard” because the claimed invention
is merely a combination of old elements with each element performing the
same function in the combination as it did separately (id. at 11).3
Zhong is directed to a delivery route planning system and method for
routing courier/delivery drivers (see, e.g., Zhong, Abstract; col. 37, ll. 25–
41), and discloses that daily delivery routes are created for drivers based on
customer participation and the demand volume for the day (see, e.g., id.
at col. 2, ll. 5–15; col. 6, ll. 26–36). The claimed invention, on the other
hand, as recited in claim 1, is directed to a method for optimally assigning

3 Bernard is directed to a system and method for managing field service, and
discloses that field technicians are equipped with service tracking devices
that provide information about equipment for which a service call is placed
(Bernard ¶ 14). The tracking devices may accept indications regarding the
status of tasks associated with the service call and record indications of
service task milestones (id.) and also may compute or download a service
call route based on various factors, including traffic conditions, and
rearrange the itinerary or add or drop service calls, e.g., in response to
instructions from a field service manager (id. ¶ 20).
Appeal 2014-009922
Application 13/038,306

5
service technicians, who work on serviceable units (e.g., equipment, devices,
apparatuses, etc.), to service territories.
In finding that Zhong discloses substantially all of the limitations of
claim 1, the Examiner draws various parallels between the features of the
Zhong system/method and the claim limitations, as set forth in claim 1.
However, we agree with Appellants that, in doing so, the Examiner makes
“apples to oranges” comparisons (Br. 19). For example, the Examiner takes
the position that a “serviceable unit” (which, in the context of claim 1, refers
to a device, system, or apparatus to be repaired by the service technician) is
equivalent to a customer stop, i.e., a street address, in the context of Zhong’s
delivery service, and that the type of Zhong stop, e.g., residential or
commercial, is the equivalent of the claimed “unit type” (see Final Act. 4, 6).
The Examiner further equates Zhong’s frequency data, i.e., the
frequency of the driver’s visits to a particular customer (see Zhong, col. 2,
ll. 43–46) to the claimed “historical usage data for each serviceable unit”
(Final Act. 9); Zhong’s disclosure of the service volume of a particular
geographic area (see Zhong, col. 2, ll. 38–40) to the claimed “historical
repair data for each serviceable unit” (Final Act. 9); the driver’s familiarity
with the geographic area (see Zhong, col. 1, ll. 38–39; col. 8, ll. 17–20) to
the claimed “historical repair success data for said selected service
technician” (Final Act. 9; see also Ans. 15–16); and the time required to
complete the workload in the geographic area (see Zhong, col. 8, ll. 20–25)
to the claimed “historical repair time data” (Final Act. 9).
The Examiner maintains that Zhong discloses “calculating . . . an
aggregated technician demand time” as a function of these variables (id.
at 9–10). Yet the calculation to which the Examiner refers, involves the
Appeal 2014-009922
Application 13/038,306

6
identification of an optimal delivery route (see id. at 10 (citing Zhong, col. 7,
ll. 15–18; col. 15, ll. 56–65 (as disclosing “recalculating said aggregated
technician demand time”))), not “an aggregated technician demand time,” as
recited in claim 1.4
In view of the foregoing, we do not sustain the Examiner’s rejection
of independent claim 1 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a). For the same reasons, we
also do not sustain the rejection of dependent claims 2–4, 9, 14, and 15.
Cf. In re Fritch, 972 F.2d 1260, 1266 (Fed. Cir. 1992) (“dependent claims
are nonobvious if the independent claims from which they depend are
nonobvious”).
Independent Claim 16 and Dependent Claims 17–20
Independent claim 16 includes language substantially similar to the
language of claim 1, and stands rejected based on the same rationale applied
with respect to claim 1 (Final Act. 11). Therefore, we do not sustain the
Examiner’s rejection under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) of independent claim 16, and
claims 17–20, which depend therefrom, for the same reasons set forth above
with respect to claim 1.
Dependent Claims 5–8 and 10–13
Claims 5–8 and 10–13 depend, directly or indirectly, from
independent claim 1. The Examiner’s rejections of these dependent claims
do not cure the deficiency in the Examiner’s rejection of claim 1. Therefore,
we do not sustain the Examiner’s rejections of claims 5–8 and 10–13 under

4 The “aggregated technician demand time” is generally described in the
Specification as the anticipated time demand on the service technician to
service the aggregated serviceable units located in the geographic area of
interest. See Spec. ¶ 35
Appeal 2014-009922
Application 13/038,306

7
35 U.S.C. § 103(a) for the same reasons set forth above with respect to
claim 1.

DECISION
The Examiner’s rejections of claims 1–20 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a)
are reversed.

REVERSED