Ex Parte Chavez et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

May 2, 2016

12720869 (P.T.A.B. May. 2, 2016)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE
121720,869 03/10/2010
48500 7590 05/25/2016
SHERIDAN ROSS P,C
1560 BROADWAY, SUITE 1200
DENVER, CO 80202
FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
David Chavez
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.
4366YDT-59 9975
EXAMINER
BOYCE, ANDRE D
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
3623
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
05/25/2016 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):
cjacquet@sheridanross.com
pair_Avaya@firsttofile.com
edocket@sheridanross.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte DAVID CHAVEZ, JEFFREY G. GARTNER, and
GERARD O'SULLIVAN
Appeal2014-000645 1
Application 12/720,8692
Technology Center 3600
Before NINA L. MEDLOCK, CYNTHIA L. MURPHY, and
AMEE A. SHAH, Administrative Patent Judges.
SHAH, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
The Appellants appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Examiner's
decision rejecting claims 1-7 and 11-23. We have jurisdiction under
35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We REVERSE.
1 Throughout this opinion, we refer to the Appeal Brief ("Appeal Br.," filed
Apr. 17, 2013), the Examiner's Answer ("Ans.," mailed Aug. 30, 2013), the
Reply Brief ("Reply Br.," filed Sept. 26, 2013), the Non-Final Office Action
("Non-Final Act.," mailed Dec. 19, 2012), and the Specification ("Spec.,"
filed Mar. 10, 2010).
2 According to the Appellants, the real party in interest is Avaya Inc.
Appeal Br. 2.
Appeal2014-000645
Application 12/720,869
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
The Appellants' invention is directed to "limit[ing] conference
attendance to the parties who are really necessary" based on, for example,
participation and feedback. Spec. 1, 11. 4--9.
Claims 1 and 11 are the independent claims on appeal. Claim 1,
which we reproduce below, is illustrative of the subject matter on appeal:
1. A method for improving conference efficiency
compnsmg:
monitoring, with at least one processor and with the
cooperation of an activity monitoring module, activities of one
or more conference participants;
determining, at least based on the monitoring, by the at
least one processor, whether a conference participant should be
included in future conferences that are already scheduled in a
calendar of the conference participant;
updating, by the at least one processor, the conference
participant's calendar; and
notifying, by the at least one processor, a conference host
of the update.
Appeal Br. 11 (Claims App.).
REJECTIONS
Claims 1-5, 11-15, and 19-22 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a) as being unpatentable over Sapp (US 2008/0031433 Al, pub.
Feb. 7, 2008), and O'Sullivan (US 8,121,880 B2, iss. Feb. 21, 2012). Non-
Final Act. 3.
Claims 6, 7, 16-18, and 23 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
being unpatentable over Sapp, O'Sullivan, and Nguyen (US 7,983,199 Bl,
iss. July 19, 2011). Non-Final Act. 10.
2
Appeal2014-000645
Application 12/720,869
ANALYSIS
Each of the independent claims 1 and 11 recites the limitation
substantially similar to "determining, at least based on the monitoring, by the
at least one processor, whether a conference participant should be included
in future conferences that are already scheduled in a calendar of the
conference participant." Appeal Br., Claims App. The Appellants contend
the Examiner's rejection is in error because Sapp does not disclose this
limitation. Appeal Br. 6.
The Examiner finds that Sapp discloses the limitation at
paragraphs 42, 37, and 39. Non-Final Act. 3--4. The Examiner finds that the
host in Sapp can schedule a conference for a specified time in the future and
provide an audience profile; upon receipt of the profile, the service identifies
a list of available users who meet the profile; and the selected users are
connected once the list is created and the schedule time approaches. Ans. 4--
5 (citing Sapp, Figure 2 and i-f 38). The Examiner further finds
wherein the creation of the list and scheduling of the users is [sic]
done prior to the time of the conference.
In other words, the user is scheduled for a future
conference based upon profile and availability, thus necessarily
scheduling the future conference into the user's calendar, the
calendar simply representing a specified time and duration in the
future of the user. As such, Sapp indeed discloses future
conferences that are already scheduled in a calendar of the
conference participant.
Id. at 5.
We find the Appellants' argument persuasive that although Sapp
discloses that a conference can be set up in the future, "there is no indication
that the scheduled future conference is already in a calendar of any of the
monitored participants". Appeal Br. 6. The Examiner's finding that because
3
Appeal2014-000645
Application 12/720,869
a user is scheduled for a future conference, the future conference is
scheduled into the user's calendar (Ans. 5) is not supported by a
preponderance of the evidence. Although Sapp discloses scheduling a future
conference and determining whether a conference participant (audience
member) should be included in a future conference, Sapp does not disclose
that the future conference is automatically (or "necessarily") scheduled in a
calendar of the participant. See Appeal Br. 6-7; Reply Br. 5. Therefore, the
Examiner's finding that Sapp discloses "determining, at least based on the
monitoring, by the at least one processor, whether a conference participant
should be included in future conferences that are already scheduled in a
calendar of the conference participant" is not adequately supported.
For that reason, we are persuaded the Examiner erred, and we do not
sustain the rejection of independent claims 1 and 11 and claims 2-5, 12-15,
and 19-22, which depend therefrom. Because the Examiner relies on the
same inadequately supported finding for the rejection of claims 6, 7, 16-18,
and 23, which depend from claim 1 or 11, we also do not sustain the
rejection of those claims.
DECISION
The Examiner's rejections of claims 1-7 and 11-23 under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a) are REVERSED.
REVERSED
4