Ex Parte Norman

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Dec 13, 2012

11069261 (P.T.A.B. Dec. 13, 2012)

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.
11/069,261 03/01/2005 Timothy Andrew Norman 100.2547 1320
46266 7590 12/13/2012
PRIEST & GOLDSTEIN, PLLC
5015 SOUTHPARK DR
SUITE 230
DURHAM, NC 27713
EXAMINER
FEACHER, LORENA R
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
3623
MAIL DATE DELIVERY MODE
12/13/2012 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 TIMOTHY ANDREW NORMAN
___________

Appeal 2011-000101
Application 11/069,261
Technology Center 3600
____________

Before BIBHU R. MOHANTY, MEREDITH C. PETRAVICK, and
MICHAEL W. KIM, Administrative Patent Judges.

PETRAVICK, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL
Appeal 2011-000101
Application 11/069,261

2
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Timothy Andrew Norman (Appellant) seeks our review under 35
U.S.C. § 134 of the final rejection of claims 1-20. We have jurisdiction
under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).

SUMMARY OF DECISION
We REVERSE. 1

THE INVENTION
This invention is “systems and techniques for project planning and
management.” Spec. 1:6-7.
Claim 1, reproduced below, is illustrative of the subject matter on
appeal.
1. A system for receiving and presenting project
planning and scheduling information,
comprising:
a processor;
a computer memory storing a project
planning module to control the processor to
receive, process and present activity
information relating to scheduling of and
progress on activities contributing to
completion of a project;
the computer memory further storing a
graphic display module to control the

1 Our decision will make reference to the Appellant’s Appeal Brief (“App.
Br.,” filed May 24, 2010) and Reply Brief (“Reply Br.,” filed Aug. 30,
2010), and the Examiner’s Answer (“Ans.,” mailed Jun. 29, 2010).

Appeal 2011-000101
Application 11/069,261

3
processor to present graphical icons
representing activities contributing to
completion of the project, the graphic
display module maintaining links to the
activity information received and processed
by the project planning module so that the
graphic icons change in appearance in
response to changes in the activity
information, the graphic display module
being operative to present a geographic
image representing one or more geographic
regions where the activities are to take place,
the icons being placed in the image so as to
indicate the geographic location where each
activity is to take place, one or more of the
icons placed in the image including links to
additional detailed information relating to
the activities represented by the icons such
that activation of a link presents the
additional detailed information.

THE REJECTIONS
The Examiner relies upon the following as evidence of
unpatentability:
Mathews
Massengale
Barrett
Burda
US 2003/0060973 A1
US 6,854,088 B2
US 2005/0039163 A1
US 7,239,930 B2
Mar. 27, 2003
Feb. 8, 2005
Feb. 17, 2005
Jul. 3, 2007
Stover, Microsoft Office Project 2003 Inside Out, Microsoft Press,
328-329 (2004) [Hereinafter, Stover.]

The Examiner took official notice that “algorithms such as a delay
ratio, are old and well-known in the project management art as a way
Appeal 2011-000101
Application 11/069,261

4
to determine and measure the impact of delays on a project.” Ans. 16.
[Hereinafter, Official Notice I.]

The Examiner took official notice that “indicating degrees of delay in
a project is old and well-known in the project management art to
ascertain the critical nature of the delay.” Ans. 17. [Hereinafter,
Official Notice II.]

The following rejections are before us for review:
1. Claims 1-5 and 8-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
being unpatentable over Massengale and Mathews.
2. Claim 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Massengale, Mathews2, and Official Notice I,
evidenced by Stover and Burda.
3. Claim 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Massengale, Mathews, Official Notice I,
evidenced by Stover and Burda, and Official Notice II,
evidenced by Barrett.

ISSUE
The issue is whether one of ordinary skill in the art would have found
it obvious to combine the project management system of Massengale with
the navigation system of Mathews.

2 The Examiner’s Answer omits Mathews from the statements of the
rejection of claims 6 and 7 (Ans. 15-16). As claim 6 and 7 depend from
claims which were rejected under a combination of Massengale and
Mathews, we shall consider this omission a typographical error.
Appeal 2011-000101
Application 11/069,261

5
ANALYSIS
The rejection of claims 1-5 and 8-20 under § 103(a) as being unpatentable
over Massengale and Mathews
We are persuaded by the Appellant’s argument (App. Br. 6-9 and
Reply Br. 1-3) that one of ordinary skill in the art would not have found it
obvious to modify Massengale’s project management display system to
include the geographic display with icons of Mathews’ navigation system
“in order to provide users with a geographic representation of project
locations such that the user can easily access project information without
having to navigate through multiple screens,” as asserted by the Examiner
(Ans. 5). Rejections based on § 103 must rest on a factual basis with these
facts being interpreted without hindsight reconstruction of the invention
from the prior art. The examiner may not, because of doubt that the
invention is patentable, resort to speculation, unfounded assumption or
hindsight reconstruction to supply deficiencies in the factual basis for the
rejection. See In re Warner, 379 F.2d 1011, 1017 (CCPA 1967), cert.
denied, 389 U.S. 1057 (1968). Our reviewing court has repeatedly cautioned
against employing hindsight by using the appellant’s disclosure as a
blueprint to reconstruct the claimed invention from the isolated teachings of
the prior art. See, e.g., Grain Processing Corp. v. American Maize-Products
Co., 840 F.2d 902, 907 (Fed. Cir. 1988).
Independent claim 13 recites similar limitations and was rejected
using the same rationale (Ans. 10-12). Accordingly, the rejection of claims
1 and 13, and claims 2-5, 8-12, and 14-20, dependent thereon, under 35
U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Massengale and Mathews is
reversed.
Appeal 2011-000101
Application 11/069,261

6

The rejection of claim 6 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable
over Massengale, Mathews, and Official Notice I, evidenced by Stover and
Burda and the rejection of claim 7 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Massengale, Mathews, Official Notice I, evidenced by
Stover and Burda, and Official Notice II, evidenced by Barrett
These rejections are directed to claims indirectly dependent on claim
1, whose rejection we have reversed above. For the same reasons, we will
not sustain the rejections of claims 6 and 7 over the cited prior art. Cf. In re
Fritch, 972 F.2d 1260, 1266 (Fed. Cir. 1992) (“[D]ependent claims are
nonobvious if the independent claims from which they depend are
nonobvious.”). Accordingly, the rejection of claim 6 under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a) as being unpatentable over Massengale, Mathews, and Official
Notice I, evidenced by Stover and Burda and the rejection of claim 7 under
35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Massengale, Mathews,
Official Notice I, evidenced by Stover and Burda, and Official Notice II,
evidenced by Barrett are reversed.

DECISION
The decision of the Examiner to reject claims 1-20 is reversed.

REVERSED

mls