`
`PATENT OWNER
`EXHIBIT 2014
`
`EXHIBIT 20 14
`
`
`
`UNITED STA (cid:9)IES PA (cid:9) PENT 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. (cid:9)
`
`10/365,298
`
`FILING DATE
`
`02/12/2003
`
`FIRST NAMED INVENTOR (cid:9)
`
`I ATTORNEY DOCKET NO. I CONFIRMATION NO.
`
`David Gerard Herbeck
`
`ROC920020187US1
`
`8187
`
`01/28/2011
`
`7590
`Grant A. Johnson
`IBM Corporation, Dept. 917
`3605 Highway 52 North
`Rochester, MN 55901-7829
`
`EXAMINER
`
`OSMAN, RAMY M
`
`ART UNIT
`
`PAPER NUMBER
`
`2457
`
`MAIL DATE
`
`DELIVERY MODE
`
`01/28/2011
`
`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)
`
`(cid:9)
`(cid:9)
`(cid:9)
`(cid:9)
`(cid:9)
`(cid:9)
`(cid:9)
`(cid:9)
`
`
`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 APPEAL
`
`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
`
`2
`
`
`
`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.
`
`The Examiner's decision rejecting claims 1-5, 8-17, 25, and 26 is
`
`DECISION
`
`reversed.
`
`REVERSED
`
`kis
`
`Grant A. Johnson
`IBM Corporation, Dept. 917
`3605 Highway 52 North
`Rochester, MN 55901-7829
`
`3
`
`