`
`PATENT OWNER
`EXHIBIT 2014
`
`EXHIBIT 20 14
`
`
`
`
`
`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
`Alexandria1 Virginia 22313- 1450
`www.uspto.gov
`
`APPLICATION NO.
`
`
`
`
`
`F ING DATE
`
`FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
`
`ATTORNEY DOCKET NO.
`
`
`
`
`
`CONF {MATION NO.
`
`10/365,298
`
`02/ 1 2/2003
`
`David Gerard Herbeck
`
`ROC920020187US 1
`
`8187
`
`GrantA.Johnson —
`IBM Corporation, Dept. 917
`OSMAN,RAMYM
`3605 Highway 52 North
`Rochester, MN 55901-7829
`
`RARBRBBMBBR
`
`2457
`
`Please find below and/0r attached an Office communication concerning this application or proceeding.
`
`The time period for reply, if any, is set in the attached communication.
`
`MAIL DATE
`
`01/28/2011
`
`DELIVERY MODE
`
`PAPER
`
`PTOL—90A (Rev. 04/07)
`
`
`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`
`BEFORE THE BOARD OF PATENT APPEALS
`
`AND INTERFERENCES
`
`Ex parte DAVID GERARD HERBECK
`and
`
`SUSETTE MARIE TOWNSEND
`
`Appeal 2009-008033
`Application 10/365,298
`Technology Center 2400
`
`Before ROBERT E. NAPPI, CARLA M. KRIVAK, and
`
`ELENI MANTIS MERCADER, Administrative Patent Judges.
`
`KRIVAK, Administrative Patent Judge.
`
`DECISION ON APPEAL1
`
`Appellants appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from a final rejection of
`
`claims 1-5, 8-17, 25, and 26. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
`
`We reverse.
`
`1 The two-month time period for filing an appeal or commencing a civil
`action, as recited in 37 C.F.R. § 1.304, or for filing a request for rehearing,
`as recited in 37 C.F.R. § 41.52, begins to run from the “MAIL DATE”
`(paper delivery mode) or the “NOTIFICATION DATE” (electronic delivery
`mode) shown on the PTOL-90A cover letter attached to this decision.
`
`
`
`Appeal 2009-008033
`Application 10/365,298
`
`STATEMENT OF THE CASE
`
`Appellants’ claimed invention is a method for improving the response
`
`time to IT problems by employing an intelligent agent for selecting an
`
`administrator ready and qualified to respond to an alert (Abstract).
`
`Independent claim 1, reproduced below, is representative of the
`
`subject matter on appeal.
`
`1. A computer-implemented method of responding to a problem
`condition, comprising:
`
`automatically detecting availability of a first candidate to
`respond to a problem condition;
`
`responsive to the detecting:
`
`automatically assigning responsibility for the problem condition
`to the first candidate; and
`
`receiving a confirmation from the first candidate indicating
`acceptance of responsibility for the problem condition.
`
`REFERENCES
`
`The Examiner rejected claims 1-5, 8-17, 25, and 26 under 35 U.S.C.
`
`§ 102(e) based upon the teachings of Venkatesh (US 7,120,647 B2).
`
`Appellants contend the Examiner is incorrect in finding Venkatesh
`
`teaches, in a computer-implemented method, “automatically” detecting
`
`availability of a first candidate, assigning responsibility, or selecting a
`
`qualified candidate available to respond (App. Br. 10; Reply Br. 1-2; Supp.
`
`Reply Br. 1-2).
`
`The Examiner responds that because “Venkatesh teaches user inputs
`
`into a computer, this demonstrates the computer processes the inputs
`
`
`
`Appeal 2009-008033
`Application 10/365,298
`
`“automatically” and thus satisfies the broad claim language” (EX. Resp. to
`
`Reply Br. 2). We do not agree. As asserted by Appellants, Venkatesh
`
`teaches a user manually selects several experts provided by the system (App.
`
`Br. 10). Merely because Venkatesh has “computers as both client and server
`
`systems .
`
`.
`
`. that communicate with each other” does not provide support for
`
`automatically performing various steps as part of a computer-implemented
`
`method as claimed (Reply Br. 3). Since all the independent claims contain
`
`the feature of “automatically,” claims 1-5, 8-17, 25, and 26 do not teach all
`
`the features of Appellants’ claimed invention.
`
`DECISION
`
`The Examiner’s decision rejecting claims 1-5, 8-17, 25, and 26 is
`
`reversed.
`
`REVERSED
`
`kis
`
`Grant A. Johnson
`
`IBM Corporation, Dept. 917
`3605 Highway 52 North
`Rochester, MN 55901-7829
`
`
Accessing this document will incur an additional charge of $.
After purchase, you can access this document again without charge.
Accept $ Charge
Still Working On It
This document is taking longer than usual to download. This can happen if we need to contact the court directly to obtain the document and their servers are running slowly.
Give it another minute or two to complete, and then try the refresh button.
A few More Minutes ... Still Working
It can take up to 5 minutes for us to download a document if the court servers are running slowly.
Thank you for your continued patience.
This document could not be displayed.
We could not find this document within its docket. Please go back to the docket page and check the link. If that does not work, go back to the docket and refresh it to pull the newest information.
Your account does not support viewing this document.
You need a Paid Account to view this document. Click here to change your account type.
Your account does not support viewing this document.
Set your membership
status to view this document.
With a Docket Alarm membership, you'll
get a whole lot more, including:
- Up-to-date information for this case.
- Email alerts whenever there is an update.
- Full text search for other cases.
- Get email alerts whenever a new case matches your search.
One Moment Please
The filing “” is large (MB) and is being downloaded.
Please refresh this page in a few minutes to see if the filing has been downloaded. The filing will also be emailed to you when the download completes.
Your document is on its way!
If you do not receive the document in five minutes, contact support at support@docketalarm.com.
Sealed Document
We are unable to display this document, it may be under a court ordered seal.
If you have proper credentials to access the file, you may proceed directly to the court's system using your government issued username and password.
Access Government Site
