Ex Parte Beaman et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Jun 10, 2016

12821755 (P.T.A.B. Jun. 10, 2016)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE
12/821,755 06/23/2010
66338 7590
IBM CORP.
c/o THOMAS E. TYSON
9150 Charles Street
Lantana, TX 76226
06/14/2016
FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
Brian S. Beaman
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.
AUS920100154US1 4502
EXAMINER
BROCKINGTON III, WILLIAMS
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
3623
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
06/14/2016 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):
tomtyson@us.ibm.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte BRIAN S. BEAMAN,
MARK K. HOFFMEYER,
JOSEPH C. DIEPENBROCK,
JOHN L. COLBERT,
ROGERS. KRABBENHOFT,
SANDRA J. SHIRK/HEATH,
and WILLIAM L. BRODSKY
Appeal2013---009602
Application 12/821,755
Technology Center 3600
Before ANTON W. PETTING, NINA L. MEDLOCK, and
BRUCE T. WIEDER, Administrative Patent Judges.
PETTING, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
STATEMENT OF THE CASE1
Brian S. Beaman, Mark K. Hoffmeyer, Joseph C. Diepenbrock,
John L. Colbert, Roger S. Krabbenhoft, Sandra J. Shirk/Heath, and
1 Our decision will make reference to the Appellants' Appeal Brief ("App.
Br.," filed April 15, 2013) and Reply Brief ("Reply Br.," filed July 22,
2013), and the Examiner's Answer ("Ans.," mailed May 23, 2013), and
Final Action ("Final Act.," mailed November 21, 2012).
Appeal2013-009602
Application 12/821,755
William L. Brodsky (Appellants) seek review under 35 U.S.C. § 134 of a
final rejection of claims 1-18, the only claims pending in the application on
appeal. We have jurisdiction over the appeal pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
The Appellants invented optimized meeting calendars. Specification
para. 1.
An understanding of the invention can be derived from a reading of
exemplary claim 1, which is reproduced below (bracketed matter and some
paragraphing added).
1. A method for scheduling meetings comprising the steps of:
[ 1] evaluating,
ma processor,
a first plurality of proposed meetings;
[2] creating,
in the processor,
a first plurality of calendars,
each calendar containing schedule data for the
plurality of proposed meetings;
[3] evaluating,
in the processor,
each calendar
according to a calendar evaluation criteria
used for a comparison of the plurality of meetings
scheduled in each of the plurality of calendars;
2
Appeal2013-009602
Application 12/821,755
[ 4] ranking,
in the processor,
each calendar
according to the calendar evaluation criteria
and
providing ranking data;
and
[5] displaying
on a processor display
a second plurality of the calendars with their respective
ranking data.
The Examiner relies upon the following prior art:
Alexander US 2007 /0288278 Al Dec. 13, 2007
Boss US 2008/0033778 Al Feb. 7,2008
Bush US 2009/0210351 Al Aug. 20, 2009
Marcus US 2009/0265203 Al Oct. 22, 2009
Ly US 2009/0292550 Al Nov. 29, 2009
Claims 1, 2, 6, 7, 11, and 12 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
unpatentable over Alexander and Marcus.
Claims 3, 8, and 13 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
unpatentable over Alexander, Marcus, and Boss.
Claims 4, 9, and 14 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
unpatentable over Alexander, Marcus, and Bush.
Claims 16-18 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable
over Alexander, Marcus, and Ly.
3
Appeal2013-009602
Application 12/821,755
ISSUES
The issues of obviousness tum primarily on whether the claims recite
particular implementations that would not encompass Alexander and
Marcus.
FACTS PERTINENT TO THE ISSUES
The following enumerated Findings of Fact (FF) are believed to be
supported by a preponderance of the evidence.
Facts Related to the Prior Art
Alexander
01. Alexander is directed to computerized scheduling of meetings.
Alexander para. 1.
02. Alexander describes automatically scheduling and managing
agendas for presentation-style meetings, through the operation of
programmed rules designed to optimize presentation schedules by
acting upon criteria provided by meeting participants so as to
resolve any conflicts arising amongst them. Alexander para. 6.
03. Alexander uses intelligent software agents to automate the
scheduling of "presentation-style" meetings, by providing a
"scheduling agent" that generates one or more possible "candidate
agendas" for the meeting based upon user-specified criteria or
constraints. The scheduling agent then sends the candidate
agendas (or relevant portions thereof) to the meeting participants,
with a request for each participant to respond with a list of
4
Appeal2013-009602
Application 12/821,755
preferences selected from the candidate agendas. The scheduling
agent then analyzes the responses of the meeting participants
using standard optimization techniques to determine one or more
"optimal agenda(s)" for ordering the timing and sequence of
presentations given in the meeting. A "calendaring agent" then
automatically updates the calendars of each of the meeting
participants with the optimal agenda(s), or it optionally sends a
confirmation request seeking an acceptance of the meeting
invitation from a participant before updating his or her calendar
with the agenda(s). Alexander para. 7.
Marcus
04. Marcus is directed to allowing search engine technology to be
leveraged through user prioritization in the automated scheduling
of meetings. Marcus para. 1.
05. Marcus describes ranking so that calendar users will be allowed
to prioritize a variety of meeting attributes. For prioritizing their
meeting requirements, users can place meeting requirements into
one of two lists: "Must/mandatory" and "preferred." The system
will then search for meeting times that satisfy the user's
prioritization. The search produces a ranked resultant set of
meeting alternatives. Users see percentage rankings of how well
the various meeting alternatives satisfy their Must and preferred
requirements, and a summary of proposed meeting logistics for
each alternative. Marcus para. 4.
5
Appeal2013-009602
Application 12/821,755
ANALYSIS
We adopt the Examiner's findings and analysis from Final Action 4--11
and Answer 3-11 and reach similar legal conclusions. We now tum to the
Reply Brief arguments.
The Specification does not define a calendar. As a calendar generally
refers to a visual representation, and the claims generally refer to internal
processing, we take the claimed recitation of "calendar" to be metaphorical
referring to some relationship between events and dates and times, consistent
with most scheduling applications.
We are not persuaded by Appellants' argument that
the section of Alexander cited by the Examiner, "the scheduling
agent then analyzes the responses of the meeting participants
using standard optimization techniques to determine one or
more 'optimal agenda( s)'" provides software (the scheduling
agent) which analyzes "responses of the meeting participants"
and not each calendar as provided by the claim. In other words,
'participant response information' is not the equivalent [of]
"evaluating, in the processor, each calendar according to a
calendar evaluation criteria used for a comparison of the
plurality of meetings scheduled in each of the plurality of
calendars" as provided by the third element of claim 1 ...
that requiring participants to provide the information as
Alexander does teach[ es] away from the processor evaluation
element of the claim ....
the 'participant preference information' of Alexander is not
equivalent to "evaluating, in the processor, each calendar
according to a calendar evaluation criteria used for a
comparison of the plurality of meetings scheduled in each of
the plurality of calendars" as provided by the third element of
claim 1. In Alexander, the participant is required to perform
the evaluation by providing the 'participant preference
information.'
6
Appeal2013-009602
Application 12/821,755
Reply Br. 2-3. The limitation at issue is "evaluating, in the processor, each
calendar according to a calendar evaluation criteria used for a comparison of
the plurality of meetings scheduled in each of the plurality of calendars."
Claim 1. No implementation is recited or narrowed. Alexander sends
candidate calendars (referred to as agendas) to participants and those
participants send those calendars back with preferences listed. Alexander
then analyzes these calendars and preferences returned from the participants
using standard optimization techniques. Such techniques generally assign
weights to the variables and iteratively solve for optimal benefit. This
implicitly evaluates each of the variables based on the weights at each
iteration.
First, it is generally obvious to automate a known manual procedure or
mechanical device. Our reviewing court stated in Leapfrog Enterprises Inc.
v. Fisher-Price Inc., 485 F.3d 1157 (Fed. Cir. 2007) that one of ordinary
skill in the art would have found it obvious to combine an old
electromechanical device with electronic circuitry "to update it using
modem electronic components in order to gain the commonly understood
benefits of such adaptation, such as decreased size, increased reliability,
simplified operation, and reduced cost. ... The combination is thus the
adaptation of an old idea or invention ... using newer technology that is
commonly available and understood in the art." Id at 1162. So automating
parameter evaluation, as such is notoriously old and well known in the
programming arts, is highly predictable.
Second, as no implementation is recited, any form of evaluation in the
processor is within the scope of the limitation. To evaluate is literally to
7
Appeal2013-009602
Application 12/821,755
. ...... ... ... ") ,........., ... . ... . ...
ascertam or t1x the value or amount.~ !wen basmg an eva1uat10n on data
input still fixes the value based on the processing after the data are entered,
if only by moving data from the keyboard buffer to main memory. This
necessarily occurs in the processor. Although this would be an admittedly
primitive form of fixing the value, absent a recited implementation, this is
well within the scope of evaluation per se.
But Alexander goes further and performs optimization techniques using
the data entered. Optimization is a generic description for a large family of
operations research algorithms that evaluate the goals in light of weights
assigned to variables to optimize a target result. The iterative changing of
such weights assigned to the various calendars during optimization is a form
of calendar evaluation. Appellants have not challenged the notoriety of
optimization techniques as described by Alexander, so such details are
simply elucidating the knowledge of one of ordinary skill in the operations
research arts.
As to teaching away, simply that there are differences between two
references is insufficient to establish that such references "teach away" from
any combination thereof. See In re Beattie, 974 F.2d 1309, 1312-13 (Fed.
Cir. 1992).
We are not persuaded by Appellants' argument that
the Marcus ranking of meeting alternatives is not the same as
the calendar rankings of the Appellant's claims. For an
example, Marcus searches for meeting times as alternatives for
a single meeting and the user then chooses the most suitable
meeting time (Marcus, paragraph 4). This is different from the
ranking of calendars, each of which includes multiple meetings
2 https://www.ahdictionary.com/word/search.html?q=evaluate
8
Appeal2013-009602
Application 12/821,755
and relationships between meetings (i.e., the scheduling of
these individual meeting relative to the other meetings in that
calendar). Therefore, calendar ranking is different from the
ranking different time alternatives for a single meeting. The
combination of Marcus's individual meeting ranking with the
Alexander reference, which does not teach ranking at all, does
not teach nor suggest the calendar ranking feature of the
Appellant's claims
Reply Br. 3. Again, no implementation is recited or narrowed. Appellants
argue that Marcus's implementation is outside the scope of the claim when
no implementation is recited. More to the point, the Examiner applied
Alexander for the plural calendars and then applied Marcus only to show it
was known to sort Alexander's calendars as a result of the optimization.
We are not persuaded by Appellants' argument that
the motivation for the combination of the Alexander and
Marcus references is, in fact, the Appellant's claims given the
changes that are made to Alexander (changing meeting
participant evaluation to processor evaluation) and Marcus
(changing a single meeting ranking based upon a single meeting
ranking criteria to ranking calendars including many meetings
based on calendar evaluation criteria) in order to support the
Examiner's argument.
Reply Br. 4. Marcus provides the reason itself. Marcus is directed to
allowing search engine technology to be leveraged through user
prioritization in the automated scheduling of meetings. Alexander uses such
user prioritization in the automated scheduling of meetings. So Marcus
describes an improved implementation for Alexander.
As to claim 2, we are not persuaded by Appellants' argument that free
time is narrower than the interpretation by the Examiner as time an attendee
is free to attend. Reply Br. 5. Neither the claim nor the Specification
9
Appeal2013-009602
Application 12/821,755
defines free time, and the Examiner's interpretation is within the scope of
the plain meaning.
As to claim 16, we are not persuaded by Appellants' argument that free
time is narrower than the interpretation by the Examiner as time an attendee
is free to attend and that Ly does not describe plural calendars. Reply Br. 6-
7. These arguments are similar to those made in support of claim 2 and
against the Marcus reference in claim 1, and are equally unpersuasive here.
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
The rejection of claims 1, 2, 6, 7, 11, and 12 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
unpatentable over Alexander and Marcus is proper.
The rejection of claims 3, 8, and 13 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
unpatentable over Alexander, Marcus, and Boss is proper.
The rejection of claims 4, 9, and 14 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
unpatentable over Alexander, Marcus, and Bush is proper.
The rejection of claims 16-18 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable
over Alexander, Marcus, and Ly is proper.
DECISION
The rejections of claims 1-18 are affirmed.
10
Appeal2013-009602
Application 12/821,755
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)(l)(iv) (2011).
AFFIRMED
11