10000904 (P.T.A.B. Jun. 26, 2013)

Ex Parte Cronin

Patent Trial and Appeal BoardJun 26, 2013

10000904 (P.T.A.B. Jun. 26, 2013)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE _____________ BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD _____________ Ex parte THOMAS M. CRONIN _____________ Appeal 2009-015115 Application 10/000,904 Technology Center 2100 ______________ Before, DAVID M. KOHUT, JOHNNY A. KUMAR, and BRYAN F. MOORE, Administrative Patent Judges. KOHUT, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL Appeal 2009-015115 Application 10/000,904 2 This is a decision on appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) of the Final Rejection of claims 1-4, 6-10, and 12-21.1 We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). We affirm the Examiner’s rejection of these claims. INVENTION The invention is directed to an apparatus, method, article, and system for scheduling events. Abstract. Claim 1 is representative of the invention and is reproduced below: 1. A scheduling apparatus, comprising: a schedule receiving module capable of automatically receiving schedule update information associated with a purchase transaction and an event, the event including an event name and an event time; a memory capable of being communicatively coupled with the schedule receiving module, the memory including a plurality of previously scheduled items, wherein each one of the plurality of previously scheduled items is associated with an item time, and wherein the memory is capable of storing the schedule update information; and a conflict determination module capable of being communicatively coupled to the memory and further capable of determining an existence of a schedule conflict between the event time and the item time. REFERENCES Clark US 5,383,112 Jan. 17, 1995 Bush US 5,475,585 Dec. 12, 1995 Levinson US 6,047,260 Apr. 4, 2000 1 Claims 5 and 11 were previously cancelled. Appeal 2009-015115 Application 10/000,904 3 Robles US 6,567,807 B1 May 20, 2003 (filed Jan. 28, 2000) Augustine US 6,574,630 B1 June 3, 2003 (filed Aug. 16, 2000) Brett US 6,704,713 B1 Mar. 9, 2004 (filed June 5, 2000) REJECTION AT ISSUE Claims 1-4, 6-10, and 12-21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over the combination of Bush and Brett. Ans. 3-11. ISSUES Did the Examiner err in finding that the combination of Bush and Brett teaches or suggests determining whether a conflict exists between a previously scheduled event and updated schedule information for an event, as required by each of independent claims 1, 8, 12, and 18? Did the Examiner err in finding that the combination of Bush and Brett is obvious? ANALYSIS Appellant selects claims 1, 8, 12, and 18 as representative of the group comprising claims 1-4, 6-10, and 12-21. App. Br. 9. Each of independent claims 1, 8, 12, and 18 requires determining whether a conflict exists between a previously scheduled event and updated schedule information for an event. Appellant argues that neither Bush nor Brett teaches the disputed limitation. App. Br. 7-8. Specifically, Appellant argues that Bush fails to teach schedule update information that is used to determine a conflict (App. Br. 7) and Brett fails to teach event times or item times that are in conflict Appeal 2009-015115 Application 10/000,904 4 (App. Br. 8). Instead, Appellant argues that Brett teaches whether a particular seat has been reserved. App. Br. 8. We disagree. First, we note that the Examiner does not make a finding that Bush teaches the disputed limitation. Instead, the Examiner finds that Bush teaches a system that receives a schedule of available programs which are available for purchase that includes both an event name and time. Ans. 3. Thus, Appellant’s argument regarding Bush is not applicable to the rejection. Second, we agree with the Examiner’s finding that Brett teaches a system which recognizes conflicts in scheduling. Ans. 14-15. Brett teaches a system in which a user can select a seat for a particular sporting or entertainment event. Ans. 4-5. The Examiner finds that the user’s selection is the claimed event name and event time. Ans. 4-5. We agree since a seat in ticketing system is reserving a seat for a particular event which would include a time of the event. The Examiner also finds that Brett’s system indicates when there is a conflict with the user’s selection. Ans. 4-5. Thus, the Examiner finds that a previous user’s selection of a seat is the claimed item time since the seat has been previously reserved. Ans. 4-5. Lastly, the Examiner finds that when the seat has been previously reserved, Brett’s system determines that there is a conflict and the user is not allowed to schedule that particular seat for that particular event at that particular time. Ans. 4-5. As such, we agree with the Examiner (Ans. 4-5) that Brett teaches determining whether a conflict exists between a previously scheduled event and updated schedule information for an event, as claimed. Third, Appellant argues that the combination of Bush with Brett is improper because there is nothing in either of the references that suggests it Appeal 2009-015115 Application 10/000,904 5 would have been obvious to combine the references. App. Br. 3. Appellant additionally argues that the motivation cited by the Examiner states a desired result, not a motivation, and, therefore, the combination is based on hindsight. App. Br. 3-4. We disagree and add the following for emphasis. First, as explained in In re McLaughlin: Any judgment on obviousness is in a sense necessarily a reconstruction based upon hindsight reasoning, but so long as it takes into account only knowledge which was within the level of ordinary skill at the time the claimed invention was made and does not include knowledge gleaned only from applicant’s disclosure, such a reconstruction is proper. In re McLaughlin, 443 F.2d 1392, 1395 (CCPA 1971). Our review of the record establishes that the Examiner’s case for obviousness is only based on knowledge which was within the level of ordinary skill at the time of the Appellant’s invention and does not include knowledge gleaned only from the Appellant’s disclosure. Second, the Examiner identifies the relevant portions of each of the references relied on throughout the Examiner’s Answer. See Ans. 3-5. To the extent that the Examiner relies on the knowledge of one of ordinary skill in the art to combine the teachings of the references, this practice is consistent with current case law. For example, the Supreme Court explains: Often, it will be necessary for a court to look to interrelated teachings of multiple patents; the effects of demands known to the design community or present in the marketplace; and the background knowledge possessed by a person having ordinary skill in the art, all in order to determine whether there was an apparent reason to combine the known elements in the fashion claimed by the patent at issue. To facilitate review, this analysis should be made explicit. See In re Kahn, 441 F.3d 977, 988 (C.A.Fed.2006) (“[R]ejections on obviousness grounds cannot be sustained by mere conclusory statements; Appeal 2009-015115 Application 10/000,904 6 instead, there must be some articulated reasoning with some rational underpinning to support the legal conclusion of obviousness”). As our precedents make clear, however, the analysis need not seek out precise teachings directed to the specific subject matter of the challenged claim, for a court can take account of the inferences and creative steps that a person of ordinary skill in the art would employ. KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 418 (2007). In this case, the Examiner’s conclusions of obviousness are clearly articulated and are based on detailed factual findings that are supported by the references of record. See Ans. 3-5. Additionally, although not required, the Examiner finds a specific motivation to combine the references. Specifically, the Examiner finds that it would have been obvious to combine Bush and Brett in order to improve “automated event ticket auctioning in a graphical representation across the entire event.” Ans. 5 (citing Brett, Col. 4, ll. 56-61). We find the Examiner’s motivation to be reasonable. Thus, we agree with the Examiner. For all of the reasons stated supra, we sustain the Examiner’s rejection of claims 1-4, 6-10, and 12-21. Appeal 2009-015115 Application 10/000,904 7 CONCLUSION2 The Examiner did not err in finding that the combination of Bush and Brett teaches or suggests determining whether a conflict exists between a previously scheduled event and updated schedule information for an event, as required by each of independent claims 1, 8, 12, and 18. The Examiner did not err in finding that the combination of Bush and Brett is obvious. SUMMARY The Examiner’s decision to reject claims 1-4, 6-10, and 12-21 is 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)(1)(iv). AFFIRMED msc 2 In the event of further prosecution of claims 12-17 and 18-21, the Examiner’s attention is directed to 35 U.S.C. § 101 and U.S. Patent &Trademark Office, Interim Guidance for Determining Subject Matter Eligibility for Process Claims in View of Bilski v. Kappos, 75 Fed. Reg. 43,922 (July 27, 2010); and U.S. Patent & Trademark Office, Interim Examination Instructions for Evaluating Subject Matter Eligibility Under 35 U.S.C. § 101, Aug. 24, 2009, available at http://www.uspto.gov/web/offices/pac/dapp/opla/2009-08- 25_interim_101_instructions.pdf and the recent decision from the U.S. Supreme Court in Mayo Collaborative Servs. v. Prometheus Labs., Inc., 132 S.Ct. 1289 (2012).