Ex Parte Anderson

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Jun 15, 2016

12229066 (P.T.A.B. Jun. 15, 2016)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE
12/229,066 08/18/2008
20529 7590 06/17/2016
NATH, GOLDBERG & MEYER
Joshua Goldberg
112 South West Street
Alexandria, VA 22314
FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
Donna Michelle Anderson
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
ATTORNEY DOCKET NO. CONFIRMATION NO.
31519U 7778
EXAMINER
FABER, DAVID
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2177
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
06/17/2016 ELECTRONIC
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.
Notice of the Office communication was sent electronically on above-indicated "Notification Date" to the
following e-mail address( es):
USPTO@nathlaw.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte DONNA MICHELLE ANDERSON
Appeal2013-001402
Application 12/229,066
Technology Center 2100
Before JOSEPH L. DIXON, JAMES R. HUGHES, and ERIC S. FRAHM,
Administrative Patent Judges.
FRAHM, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Introduction
Appellant appeals under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Examiner's
Final Rejection of claims 1-3 and 10. Claims 4--9 have been withdrawn
from further consideration based on Appellant's election in response to a
restriction requirement. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b ). We
affirm.
Appeal2013-001402
Application 12/229,066
Exemplary Claim
Exemplary independent claim 1 under appeal, with emphases added to
the disputed portions of the claim, reads as follows:
1. A method of displaying a calendar user interface,
compnsmg:
receiving an indication that a time period associated with
a calendar bar in the calendar user interface has been edited;
determining, for each date display element corresponding
to a date in the time period, whether the date display element
corresponding to the date in the time period in the calendar user
interface is full; and
in the event that the date display element is full, modifYing
all of any calendar bars associated with the date so that the
calendar bars associated with the date are simultaneously
viewable in the date display element corresponding to the date.
Examiner's Rejections
(1) The Examiner rejected claims 1-2 as being unpatentable under
35 U.S.C. § 103(a) over Microsoft Outlook Calendar, Univ. of Hawaii, 1-9
(Nov. 18, 2005) (hereinafter, "UH") and Ferri et al. (US 2005/0125736 Al;
published June 9, 2005) (hereinafter, "Ferri"). Final Act. 2--4.
(2) The Examiner rejected claim 3 as being unpatentable under 35
U.S.C. § 103(a) over UH, Ferri, and Kudrolli et al. (US 2003/0028560 Al;
published Feb. 6, 2003) (hereinafter, "Kudrolli"). Final Act. 4.
(3) The Examiner rejected claim 10 as being unpatentable under 35
U.S.C. § 103(a) over UH, Ferri, and OfficeHelp-Macro (00037)-
Traditional Calendars for Excel, 1-10 (July 1, 2007) (archived Oct. 23,
2
Appeal2013-001402
Application 12/229,066
2007) (http://officehelp.biz/officehelp/viewcontentsprinter.asp?id=00037)
(last visited Aug. 15, 2011) (hereinafter, "OfficeHelp"). Final Act. 4--5.
Principal Issues on Appeal
Based on Appellant's arguments in the Appeal Brief (App. Br. 8-15)
and the Reply Brief (Reply Br. 12-17), the following principal issue is
presented on appeal:
(1) Did the Examiner err in rejecting independent claim 1 as being
obvious over the combination of UH and Ferri because the combination fails
to teach or suggest "receiving an indication that a time period associated
with a calendar bar in the calendar user interface has been edited" or "in the
event that the date display element is full, modifying all of any calendar bars
associated with the date so that the calendar bars associated with the date are
simultaneously viewable in the date display element corresponding to the
date," as recited in independent claim 1?
(2) Did the Examiner err in rejecting claim 2 as being obvious over
the combination of UH and Ferri because the combination fails to teach or
suggest "modifying includes reducing the size of the calendar bars," as
recited in claim 2?
(3) Did the Examiner err in rejecting claim 3 as being obvious over
the combination of UH, Ferri, and Kudrolli because the combination fails to
teach or suggest "modifying includes reducing the size of font used in the
calendar bars," as recited in claim 3?
(4) Did the Examiner err in rejecting claim 10 as being obvious over
the combination of UH, Ferri, and OfficeHelp because the combination fails
to teach or suggest
3
Appeal2013-001402
Application 12/229,066
displaying a view of spreadsheet data, said display of spreadsheet
data including spreadsheet data related to the time period
displayed in the calendar user interface, said step of displaying
the spreadsheet data including:
responsive to the indication that a time period associated
with a calendar bar in the calendar user interface has been edited,
analyzing the spreadsheet data to determine a page format for a
plurality of pages; and
displaying the spreadsheet data in a page format view
using the page format,
as recited in claim 1 O?
ANALYSIS
We have reviewed the Examiner's rejections (Final Act. 2-5) in light
of Appellant's contentions in the Appeal Brief (App. Br. 8-15) and the
Reply Brief (Reply Br. 12-17) that the Examiner has erred, as well as the
Examiner's response (Ans. 2---6) to Appellant's arguments in the Appeal
Brief. We disagree with Appellant's conclusions.
We concur with the conclusions reached by the Examiner, and adopt
as our own ( 1) the findings and reasons set forth by the Examiner in the
Action from which this appeal is taken (Final Act. 2-5), and (2) the reasons
set forth by the Examiner in the Examiner's Answer in response to
Appellant's Appeal Brief (Ans. 2---6). We highlight and amplify certain
teachings and suggestions of the references, as well as certain ones of
Appellant's arguments as follows.
Claim 1
We agree with the Examiner (Ans. 2-3) as to independent claim 1 that
the combination of UH and Ferri teaches or suggests "receiving an
indication that a time period associated with a calendar bar in the calendar
4
Appeal2013-001402
Application 12/229,066
user interface has been edited," as recited in independent claim 1. UH
teaches (pp. 2 and 5) that appointments can be added to specific time
periods. Since the operation is being performed on a computer, a
notification that the event has been created (and thus, the time period edited)
would inherently be sent so that the information could be saved and later
retrieved.
We also agree with the Examiner (Ans. 2 and 3-5) that the
combination of UH and Ferri teaches or suggests "in the event that the date
display element is full, modifying all of any calendar bars associated with
the date so that the calendar bars associated with the date are simultaneously
viewable in the date display element corresponding to the date," as recited in
independent claim 1. UH (p. 2) teaches or suggests calendar bars
corresponding to specific dates which are simultaneously viewable in the
date display element corresponding to the date. Ferri (i-f 33) teaches or
suggests modifying graphical elements to reduce their size so that all
elements are simultaneously viewable. A person having ordinary skill in the
art would, therefore, be motivated to combine the calendar display of UH
with the element reduction step of Ferri to allow all data from a specific
event to be viewable instead of being truncated. Such a modification would
have been within the abilities of one having ordinary skill in the art at the
time of invention.
In light of our agreement with the Examiner's findings, Appellant's
contentions that the combination of UH and Ferri fail to teach or suggest
"receiving an indication that a time period associated with a calendar bar in
the calendar user interface has been edited" and "in the event that the date
display element is full, modifying all of any calendar bars associated with
5
Appeal2013-001402
Application 12/229,066
the date so that the calendar bars associated with the date are simultaneously
viewable in the date display element corresponding to the date," as recited in
independent claim 1, are not persuasive.
In view of the foregoing, we sustain the obviousness rejection of
claim 1 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a).
Claim 2
In light of our agreement with the Examiner regarding independent
claim 1, we agree with the Examiner (Ans. 3 and 5) that the combination of
UH and Ferri teaches or suggests "modifying includes reducing the size of
the calendar bars" because, as discussed supra, Ferri (i-f 33) teaches reducing
the size of graphical elements so that all graphical elements are viewable
within a specified space. Appellant's contention that UH's calendar bars
cannot be reduced in size because Outlook doesn't support a smaller size is
not persuasive because one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of
invention would have been capable of modifying Outlook to incorporate the
teachings of Ferri.
In view of the foregoing, we sustain the obviousness rejection of
claim 2 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a).
Claim 3
We agree with the Examiner (Ans. 5) that the combination of UH,
Ferri, and Kudrolli teaches or suggests "modifying includes reducing the
size of font used in the calendar bars," as recited in claim 3. Kudrolli (i-f
584) teaches or suggests reducing the size of font to fit the information
within its allocated space. A person having ordinary skill in the art at the
time of invention would have been motivated to reduce the size of the font
used within the calendar bars of UH in order to avoid having to truncate the
6
Appeal2013-001402
Application 12/229,066
information and doing so would have been within the abilities of a person
having ordinary skill in the art.
In view of the foregoing, we sustain the obviousness rejection of
claim 3 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a).
Claim 10
We agree with the Examiner (Final Act. 4--5) that the combination of
UH, Ferri, and OfficeHelp teaches or suggests
displaying a view of spreadsheet data, said display of spreadsheet
data including spreadsheet data related to the time period
displayed in the calendar user interface, said step of displaying
the spreadsheet data including:
responsive to the indication that a time period associated
with a calendar bar in the calendar user interface has been edited,
analyzing the spreadsheet data to determine a page format for a
plurality of pages; and
displaying the spreadsheet data in a page format view
using the page format,
as recited in claim 10. OfficeHelp (pp. 6 and 8) teaches or suggests
importing Outlook calendar data into an Excel spreadsheet, which would
result in the calendar data being displayed in spreadsheet format and having
the other claimed qualities. As Officially Noticed by the Examiner (Final
Act. 5), re-pagination of imported data was old and well-known in the art, an
assertion which has not been refuted by Appellant (see generally App. Br.
14--15; Reply Br. 16-17).
In view of the foregoing, we sustain the obviousness rejection of
claim 10 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a).
7
Appeal2013-001402
Application 12/229,066
CONCLUSIONS
(1) The Examiner did not err in rejecting independent claim 1 as being
obvious over the combination of UH and Ferri because the combination
teaches or suggests "receiving an indication that a time period associated
with a calendar bar in the calendar user interface has been edited" and "in
the event that the date display element is full, modifying all of any calendar
bars associated with the date so that the calendar bars associated with the
date are simultaneously viewable in the date display element corresponding
to the date," as recited in independent claim 1.
(2) The Examiner did not err in rejecting claim 2 as being obvious
over the combination of UH and Ferri because the combination teaches or
suggests "modifying includes reducing the size of the calendar bars," as
recited in claim 2.
(3) The Examiner did not err in rejecting claim 3 as being obvious
over the combination of UH, Ferri, and Kudrolli because the combination
teaches or suggests "modifying includes reducing the size of font used in the
calendar bars," as recited in claim 3.
(4) The Examiner did not err in rejecting claim 10 as being obvious
over the combination of UH, Ferri, and OfficeHelp because the combination
teaches or suggests
displaying a view of spreadsheet data, said display of spreadsheet
data including spreadsheet data related to the time period
displayed in the calendar user interface, said step of displaying
the spreadsheet data including:
responsive to the indication that a time period associated
with a calendar bar in the calendar user interface has been edited,
analyzing the spreadsheet data to determine a page format for a
plurality of pages; and
8
Appeal2013-001402
Application 12/229,066
displaying the spreadsheet data in a page format view
using the page format,
as recited in claim 10.
DECISION
The Examiner's rejections of claims 1-3 and 10 under
35 U.S.C. § 103(a) are 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)(l )(iv).
AFFIRMED
9