Ex Parte Darling

Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences

Jul 8, 2010

10267954 (B.P.A.I. Jul. 8, 2010)

UNITED STATES PATENT 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. FILING DATE FIRST NAMED INVENTOR ATTORNEY DOCKET NO. CONFIRMATION NO.
10/267,954 10/09/2002 Anne Marie Darling 17209-446 1378
54205 7590 07/09/2010
CHADBOURNE & PARKE LLP
30 ROCKEFELLER PLAZA
NEW YORK, NY 10112
EXAMINER
HAILU, TADESSE
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2173
MAIL DATE DELIVERY MODE
07/09/2010 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)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
__________

BEFORE THE BOARD OF PATENT APPEALS
AND INTERFERENCES
__________

Ex parte ANNIE MARIE DARLING
__________

Appeal 2008-006152
Application 10/267,954
Technology Center 2100
__________

Before JAMES D. THOMAS, CAROLYN D. THOMAS, and
STEPHEN C. SIU, Administrative Patent Judges.

SIU, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL1

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 2008-006152
Application 10/267,954

2
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
This is a decision on appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the
Examiner’s rejection of claims 1-26. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C.
§ 6(b).
We affirm.
Invention
The invention relates to constructing and maintaining a calendaring
interface (Spec. 1).
Independent claims 1, 12, and 25 are illustrative:
1. A method for creating an event, the method
comprising:
selecting an event type from among a plurality of
available event types;
associating a plurality of subevent types with said
selected event type, said subevent types selected from a
plurality of available subevent types, said subevent types
including at least one conference call and at least one
one-on-one meeting;
providing event and subevent details for said selected
event type and said selected subevent types; and
establishing access privileges for said event, wherein said
access privileges are automatically associated with each
of said subevents.
12. An apparatus for generating a single source
calendaring interface for scheduling events, in a client
side data processing system, said apparatus comprising:
Appeal 2008-006152
Application 10/267,954

3
- a plurality of data sources from a server side data
processing system, wherein a plurality of data feeds are
constructed from said data sources,
- a graphic user interface constructed from said plurality
of feeds, wherein said graphic user interface further
comprises:
- a Search Region,
- a View Region, said View Region allowing a user
to view each event either in collapsed from or in
expanded form, said expanded form allowing the
user to view all sub-events included in said each
event,
- a Details Region, which further comprises
- a Sign Up option,
- a General option,
- a People option, and,
- a Location option,
- and whereby each of the Regions is User configurable.
25. A method for managing an event, comprising:
operating a user device to create an event, said event
suitable for a plurality of external users, said event
including event information defining a time, a location,
and a subject, said event including a plurality of
subevents, said plurality of subevents including at least
one conference call and at least one one-on-one meeting;
causing event information to be transmitted to a first
group of internal users for communication to said
plurality of external users;
receiving requests for attendance from said plurality of
external users;
Appeal 2008-006152
Application 10/267,954

4
creating a final event schedule based on said requests for
attendance;
causing confirmation information to be transmitted to
said first group of internal users for communication to
said plurality of external users; and
generating event summary reports upon completion of
said event.
References
The Examiner relies upon the following references as evidence in
support of the rejection:
Thompson US 5,491,797 Feb. 13, 1996
Breitenbach US 2002/0016729 A1 Feb. 7, 2002
(filed Jun. 18, 2001)
Jameson US 2002/0156787 A1 Oct. 24, 2002
(filed Feb. 13, 2002)
Begole US 2004/0039630 A1 Feb. 26, 2004
(filed Aug. 12, 2002)
Rejections
Claims 1-11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Breitenbach and Begole.
Claims 12-24 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Breitenbach and Jameson.
Claims 25 and 26 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Breitenbach, Begole, and Thompson.
Appeal 2008-006152
Application 10/267,954

5
ISSUES
Issue 1
The Examiner finds that “[i]t would have been obvious to include the
‘at least one conference call and at least one to one meeting’ in Breitenbach
because the event-based scheduling system is well known to provide at least
one conference call and one to one meeting to establish the meeting/
conferencing [sic]” (Ans. 6-7).
Appellant argues “that Breitenbach fails to disclose subevent types
which include a conference call and a one-on-one meeting” (App. Br. 7).
Appellant further argues that “[w]hat is most important about Begole is what
it does not disclose, namely any concept of subevents or associating a
subevent with an event” (id.).
Issue: Did the Examiner err in finding that Breitenbach and Begole
would have taught or suggested associating a subevent with an event and
that the subevent types include one conference call and at least one one-on-
one meeting?
Issue 2
The Examiner finds that “it would have been obvious to a person of
ordinary skill in the art to incorporate the timing of report generation, that is,
upon completion of each event (conference) as described by Thompson with
Breitenbach[/Begole]’s report generation method” (Ans. 11).
Appellant argues that “[t]he essence of Breitenbach’s system is event
planning and event data storage. Thompson’s teachings present no apparent
Appeal 2008-006152
Application 10/267,954

6
reason why one of ordinary skill would consider Thompson’s reports about
video conferences as pertinent to Breitenbach’s system” (App. Br. 8).
Issue: Did the Examiner err in finding that Breitenbach, Begole, and
Thompson would have taught or suggested generating an event summary
report upon completion of the event?
Issue 3
The Examiner finds that Jameson “clearly discloses a scheduling,
planning and event management system that utilizes collapsible and
expandable menus” (Ans. 18).
Appellant argues that “the Examiner’s treatment of the claim
limitation ‘subevent’ is less than clear. Basically the Examiner’s approach to
this term is to blur the difference between ‘subevent’ and ‘sub-category’.
The former term refers to a constituent element of an event; the latter term,
as used in Jameson, refers to a group of expense items” (App. Br. 9 n.8).
Issue: Did the Examiner err in finding that Breitenbach and Jameson
would have taught or suggested a graphic user interface comprising a view
region, the view region allowing a user to view each event either in
collapsed form or in expanded form, the expanded form allowing the user to
view all sub-events included in said each event?
Appeal 2008-006152
Application 10/267,954

7
FINDINGS OF FACT
The following Findings of Fact (FF) are shown by a preponderance of
the evidence.
1. Breitenbach discloses details of an “event scheduling process”
(¶ [0038]; fig. 6), including “further detail [of] the tasks and sub-
tasks [of the event scheduling process]” (¶ [0039]; fig. 7).
2. Breitenbach discloses “the integration and interoperability of the
tasks and sub-tasks. . . . [A]n event includes one or more tasks 66
. . . and each task 66 includes one or more sub-tasks 67”
(¶ [0103]; fig. 7).
3. Breitenbach discloses a “sub-task module as including one or
more subtasks, such as for example, an order sub-task 72; a
transmit order sub-task 73; a status/confirm order sub-task 74; a
deliver order sub-task 75; a bill order sub-task 76; a pay order
sub-task 77; a report(s) sub-task 78; a customer survey sub-task
79; status sub-task (not shown), up to a sub-task n” (¶ [0103];
fig. 7).
4. Breitenbach discloses “conference room booking report screens
. . . customizable catering report screens . . . catering production
reports screens . . . catering sales report screens . . . audio/visual
report screens . . . [and] maintenance request organization report
screens” (¶¶ [0066-71]; figs. 28A-33B).
5. Begole discloses “[a] system and method [that] effectuates
scheduling and initiating contact between people” (Abstract).
Appeal 2008-006152
Application 10/267,954

8
6. Begole discloses that “where activity does occur during times of
scheduled appointments, that activity is displayed as dark gray.
Such activity during schedule appointments can indicate . . . an
appointment held at the locale of the person’s work station (e.g., a
teleconference call or a one-on-one meeting, etc.)” (¶ [0089]).
7. Thompson discloses “generating a conference transaction report
. . . upon completion of each conference” (col. 8, ll. 24-26).
8. Jameson discloses “[a]n Internet-based system and method for
planning and managing an event” (Abstract).
9. Jameson discloses an “expense tracking module [that] utilizes
collapsible and expandable menus 4010 to display the desired
amount of detail. The menu can be entirely collapsed so that only
the name of the event appears. Alternatively, the user may expand
the menu to display any combination of categories and sub-
categories” (¶ [0118]; fig. 40).
10. Appellant admits that “[t]he Examiner is incorrect in stating that
appellant ‘questioned the combination of Breitenbach with
Begole’” (Reply Br. 1).
11. Appellant admits that “appellant is not challenging the
combinability of [Breitenbach, Begole, and Thompson]” (Reply
Br. 1).
Appeal 2008-006152
Application 10/267,954

9
PRINCIPLES OF LAW
Claim interpretation
“In the patentability context, claims are to be given their broadest
reasonable interpretations. . . . [L]imitations are not to be read into the
claims from the specification.” In re Van Geuns, 988 F.2d 1181, 1184 (Fed.
Cir. 1993) (citations omitted). A claim meaning is reasonable if one of
ordinary skill in the art would understand the claim, read in light of the
specification, to encompass the meaning. See In re American Academy of
Science Tech Center, 367 F.3d 1359, 1364 (Fed. Cir. 2004).
Obviousness
The question of obviousness is resolved on the basis of underlying
factual determinations including (1) the scope and content of the prior art,
(2) any differences between the claimed subject matter and the prior art, and
(3) the level of skill in the art. Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 17-18
(1966). One cannot show nonobviousness by attacking references
individually where the rejections are based on combinations of references.
In re Merck & Co., Inc., 800 F.2d 1091, 1097 (Fed. Cir. 1986).
“The combination of familiar elements according to known methods
is likely to be obvious when it does no more than yield predictable results,”
KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex, Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 416 (2007), especially if the
combination would not be “uniquely challenging or difficult for one of
ordinary skill in the art,” Leapfrog Enters., Inc. v. Fisher-Price, Inc., 485
F.3d 1157, 1162 (Fed. Cir. 2007) (citing KSR, 550 U.S. at 418).
Appeal 2008-006152
Application 10/267,954

10
ANALYSIS
Issue 1
Appellant challenges the Examiner’s finding that Breitenbach and
Begole would have taught or suggested the claimed associating of a
subevent with an event. Based on Appellant’s arguments in the Appeal
Brief, we will decide the appeal of claims 1-11, 25, and 26 with respect to
issue 1 on the basis of claim 1. See 37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(1)(vii).
Appellant argues that a limitation “that is not taught or suggested by
either of the references [is the recitation] that a plurality of subevent types
are associated with a selected event type, that the subevent types are selected
from a plurality of available subevent types, and that the subevent types
include at least one conference call and at least one one-on-one meeting”
(App. Br. 7). We are not persuaded by the argument that the combination of
Breitenbach and Begole fails to teach or suggest this recitation. This attack
on each reference individually fails to address the rejection, which is based
on the combined teachings and suggestions of Breitenbach and Begole.
Breitenbach teaches an event scheduling process that includes tasks
and sub-tasks, along with the integration and interoperability of tasks and
sub-tasks (FF 1-2). Breitenbach also discloses an open-ended variety of sub-
tasks (FF 3). Begole relates to scheduling and initiating contact between
people (FF 5). Begole teaches activities that include a “teleconference call
or a one-on-one meeting” (FF 6).
Appellant explicitly does not question the combination of Breitenbach
with Begole (FF 10). Thus, we can rely on the Examiner’s finding that it
Appeal 2008-006152
Application 10/267,954

11
would have been obvious to an artisan—one of ordinary skill in the art,
possessing common sense and creativity—to combine the teachings and
suggestions of Breitenbach and Begole (Ans. 6-7). Therefore, we find that
Breitenbach and Begole would have taught or suggested associating
(integration and interoperability) a subevent (of a sub-task) with an event
(with a task of an event) and that the subevent types (that variety of sub-
tasks or activities) include one conference call and one one-on-one meeting
(teleconference call or a one-on-one meeting).
For at least these reasons, we find no evidence persuasive of error in
the Examiner’s 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) rejection of claim 1, and claims 2-11, 25,
and 26 which fall therewith with respect to this issue.
Issue 2
Appellant challenges the Examiner’s finding that the combination of
Breitenbach, Begole, and Thompson teaches or suggests generating an event
summary report upon completion of the event. Based on Appellant’s
arguments in the Appeal Brief, we will decide the appeal of claims 25 and 26
with respect to issue 2 on the basis of claim 25. See 37 C.F.R.
§ 41.37(c)(1)(vii).
Breitenbach teaches a variety of report screens, such as conference
booking report screens (FF 4). Thompson teaches generating a conference
transaction report upon completion of each conference (FF 7). Appellant
explicitly does not challenge the combinability of Breitenbach, Begole, and
Thompson (FF 11). Thus, we can rely on the Examiner’s finding that it
would have been obvious to an artisan to combine the teachings and
Appeal 2008-006152
Application 10/267,954

12
suggestions of Breitenbach, Begole, and Thompson (Ans. 11). Therefore,
we find that Breitenbach, Begole, and Thompson would have taught or
suggested generating an event summary report (report screen) upon
completion of the event (upon completion of each conference).
For at least these reasons, we find no evidence persuasive of error in
the Examiner’s 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) rejection of claim 25, and claim 26 which
falls therewith with respect to this issue.
Issue 3
Appellant argues that Jameson relates to the display of expense items,
not sub-events. The Examiner finds that Jameson teaches collapsible and
expandable menus. Based on Appellant’s arguments in the Appeal Brief, we
will decide the appeal of claims 12-24 with respect to issue 3 on the basis of
claim 12. See 37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(1)(vii).
Appellant argues that “Jameson’s expandable menu is used to display
expense items, not sub-events, and that the latter are different from the
former” (Reply Br. 2). However, Appellant cannot prevail by attacking
Jameson individually; the rejection is based on the combination of
Breitenbach and Jameson.
Jameson teaches collapsible and expandable menus as part of an
expense tracking module (FF 9). This module can display multiple levels of
category and sub-category detail, including merely the name of the event
(id.). Thus, Jameson teaches or suggests the graphical display of a
hierarchical data, with events comprising additional details: categories and
Appeal 2008-006152
Application 10/267,954

13
subcategories of expenses. Breitenbach, as discussed earlier, teaches events
comprising tasks and sub-tasks—another hierarchy.
Jameson teaches a system and method for planning and managing an
event (FF 8) while Breitenbach teaches an event scheduling process (FF 1).
This supports the Examiner’s finding that “Jameson and Breitenbach are
analogous art because they are from the same field of endeavor, event
management” (Non-Fin. Rej. 12). Moreover, Appellant fails to challenge
the existence or import of this nexus (App. Br. 9-10). Accordingly, we find
that it would have been obvious to an artisan to combine teachings and
suggestions from both references. Therefore, we find that Breitenbach and
Jameson would have taught or suggested a graphical user interface (module)
comprising a view region (menus), the view region allowing the user to view
each event in collapsed form (that are collapsible) or in expanded form (or
expandable), the expanded form allowing the user to view (to view levels of
event detail) all sub-events (such as sub-tasks) included in said each event.
For at least these reasons, we find no evidence persuasive of error in
the Examiner’s 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) rejection of claim 12, and claims 13-24
which fall therewith with respect to this issue.
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
Based on the findings of facts and analysis above, we find no
evidence persuasive of error in the Examiner’s findings:
1. that Breitenbach and Begole would have taught or suggested
associating a subevent with an event and that the subevent types include one
conference call and at least one one-on-one meeting (issue 1);
Appeal 2008-006152
Application 10/267,954

14
2. that Breitenbach, Begole, and Thompson would have taught or
suggested generating an event summary report upon completion of the event
(issue 2); and
3. that Breitenbach and Jameson would have taught or suggested a
graphic user interface comprising a view region, the view region allowing a
user to view each event either in collapsed form or in expanded form, the
expanded form allowing the user to view all sub-events included in said each
event (issue 3).
DECISION
We affirm the Examiner’s decisions rejecting claims 1-26 under
35 U.S.C. § 103(a).
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

CHADBOURNE & PARKE LLP
30 ROCKEFELLER PLAZA
NEW YORK, NY 10112