Ex Parte Parikshya et al

Patent Trial and Appeal BoardDec 18, 2012

11937178 (P.T.A.B. Dec. 18, 2012)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE ____________ BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD ____________ Ex parte DEBABRAT PARIKSHYA and KRISHNA RAMKRISHNAN ___________ Appeal 2011-009886 Application 11/937,178 Technology Center 3600 ____________ Before ANTON W. FETTING, JOSEPH A. FISCHETTI, and MEREDITH C. PETRAVICK, Administrative Patent Judges. PETRAVICK, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL STATEMENT OF THE CASE Debabrat Parikshya (Appellants) seek our review under 35 U.S.C. § 134 of the final rejection of claims 23-26, 28-36, and 38-47. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). An oral hearing was held on December 6, 2012. Appeal 2011-009886 Application 11/937,178 2 SUMMARY OF DECISION We AFFIRM. 1 THE INVENTION This invention is “methods and system for assigning work to account collectors and monitoring and tracking work performed by account collectors.” Spec. para. [01]. Claim 23, reproduced below, is illustrative of the subject matter on appeal. 23. A computer-implemented method comprising: accessing collections data that references overdue accounts in which customers are late on payment; providing, by one or more computers, a graphical user interface that allows an account collector team leader to enter values for one or more criteria that are used for selecting a subset of the overdue accounts, and to enter data identifying a particular account collector from among multiple account collectors to which the subset of the overdue accounts is to be redistributed, wherein, for one or more of the overdue accounts of the subset, the particular account collector to which the one or more overdue accounts is to be redistributed is different than a currently assigned account collector to which the one or more overdue accounts is currently assigned; receiving the values for the criteria and the data identifying a particular account collector, that have been entered by the account collector team leader through the graphical user interface; 1 Our decision will make reference to the Appellants’ Appeal Brief (“App. Br.,” filed Mar. 22, 2011) and Reply Brief (“Reply Br.,” filed May 4, 2011), and the Examiner’s Answer (“Ans.,” mailed Apr. 28, 2011). Appeal 2011-009886 Application 11/937,178 3 selecting the subset of the overdue accounts using the values that have been entered by the account collector team leader; and redistributing the subset of the overdue accounts to the particular account collector for collection. THE REJECTIONS The Examiner relies upon the following as evidence of unpatentability: Piazza Friedman Tracey Hoff Kass US 2003/0061358 A1 US 2004/0010458 A1 US 2004/0254823 A1 US 2008/0195429 A1 US 2010/0161459 A1 Mar. 27, 2003 Jan. 15, 2004 Dec. 16, 2004 Aug. 14, 2008 Jun. 24, 2010 The following rejections are before us for review: 1. Claims 23, 27-31, 33, 37-41, 43, and 45-47 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. §103(a) as being unpatentable over Tracey, Hoff, and Kass. 2. Claims 24-25, 32, 34, 35, and 42 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. §103(a) as being unpatentable over Tracey, Hoff, Kass, and Piazza. 3. Claims 26, 36, and 44 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. §103(a) as being unpatentable over Tracey, Hoff, Kass, and Friedman. Appeal 2011-009886 Application 11/937,178 4 ISSUES The first issue is whether claims 23, 27-31, 33, 37-41, 43, and 45-47 are unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. §103(a) over Tracey, Hoff, and Kass. Specifically, the major issue is whether the combination of the prior art teaches “providing, by one or more computers, a graphical user interface that allows an account collector team leader . . . to enter data identifying a particular account collector from among multiple account collectors to which the subset of overdue accounts is to be redistributed.” The rejection of claims 24-25, 32, 34, 35, and 42 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. §103(a) as being unpatentable over Tracey, Hoff, Kass, and Piazza also turns on this issue. The second issue is whether 26, 36, and 44 are unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. §103(a) over Tracey, Hoff, Kass, and Friedman. Specifically, the major issue is whether the combination of the prior art teaches “displaying the quantity of overdue accounts in the subset on the graphical user interface” and “determining that . . . the account collector team leader has selected a control on the graphical user interface for initiating redistribution.” FINDINGS OF FACT We find that the following findings of fact are supported by at least a preponderance of the evidence. Ethicon, Inc. v. Quigg, 849 F.2d 1422, 1427 (Fed. Cir. 1988) (explaining the general evidentiary standard for proceedings before the Office). We adopt the Examiner’s findings of fact which appear in the Answer. Appeal 2011-009886 Application 11/937,178 5 ANALYSIS The rejection of claims 23, 27-31, 33, 37-41, 43, and 45-47 under §103(a) as being unpatentable over Tracey, Hoff, and Kass Claims 23, 33, and 43 To contest the Examiner’s rejection of claims 23, 33, and 43 the Appellants argue that none of Tracey, Hoff, and Kass teaches “providing . . . a graphical user interface that allows an account collector team leader . . . to enter data identifying a particular account collector from among multiple account collectors to which the subset of the overdue accounts is to be redistributed.” App. Br. 5-8. We find the Appellants’ argument unpersuasive for the reasons given by the Examiner on pages 12-13 of the Examiner’s Answer. We agree with the Examiner that the combined teaching of Tracey, Hoff, and Kass would have led one of ordinary skill in the art to the limitation at issue. The mere existence of differences between the prior art and the claim does not establish nonobviousness. Dann v. Johnston, 425 U.S. 219, 230, 189 USPQ 257, 261 (1976). The issue is “whether the difference between the prior art and the subject matter in question” is a difference sufficient to render the claimed subject matter unobvious to one skilled in the applicable art.'" Dann, 425 U.S. at 228-29, (citation omitted). Accordingly, the rejection of claims 23, 33, and 43 under §103(a) as being unpatentable over Tracey, Hoff, and Kass is affirmed. Appeal 2011-009886 Application 11/937,178 6 Claim 45 We find the Appellants’ argument that the combination of Tracey, Hoff, and Kass fails to disclose the limitation recited in claim 45 unpersuasive for the reasons given by the Examiner on pages 14-15 of the Examiner’s Answer, which we will not repeat here. Accordingly, the rejection of claim 45 §103(a) as being unpatentable over Tracey, Hoff, and Kass is affirmed. Claims 29, 31, 39, and 41 We find the Appellants’ argument that the combination of Tracey, Hoff, and Kass fails to disclose the limitations recited in claims 29, 31, 39, and 41 unpersuasive for the reasons given by the Examiner on pages 14 of the Examiner’s Answer, which we will not repeat here. Accordingly, the rejection of claims 29, 31, 39, and 41 §103(a) as being unpatentable over Tracey, Hoff, and Kass is affirmed. Claims 27-28, 30, 37-38, 40, and 46-47 These claims were not argued separately with any specificity, so we affirm this rejection for the same reasons as above. The rejection of claims 26, 36, and 44 under 35 U.S.C. §103(a) as being unpatentable over Tracey, Hoff, Kass, and Friedman Claims 26 and 36 We find the Appellants’ argument that the combination of Tracey, Hoff, Kass, and Friedman fails to disclose the limitations recited in claims Appeal 2011-009886 Application 11/937,178 7 26 and 36 unpersuasive for the reasons given on pages 13-14 of the Examiner’s Answer, which we will not repeat here. Accordingly, the rejection of claims 26 and 36 under §103(a) as being unpatentable over Tracey, Hoff, Kass, and Friedman is affirmed. Claim 44 This claim was not argued separately with any specificity, so we affirm the rejection for the same reasons as above. The rejection of claims 24-25, 32, 34, 35, and 42 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. §103(a) as being unpatentable over Tracey, Hoff, Kass, and Piazza These claims were not argued separately with any specificity, so we affirm this rejection for the same reasons as above. DECISION The decision of the Examiner to reject claims 23-26, 28-36, and 38-47 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)(1)(iv). AFFIRMED Klh