Ex Parte Dutton et alDownload PDFPatent Trial and Appeal BoardOct 24, 201411737562 (P.T.A.B. Oct. 24, 2014) Copy Citation UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE ____________ BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD ____________ Ex parte MICHAEL D. DUTTON and DIANE M. DUTTON ____________ Appeal 2012-000906 Application 11/737,562 Technology Center 3600 ____________ Before: HUBERT C. LORIN, MICHAEL W. KIM, and NINA L. MEDLOCK, Administrative Patent Judges. KIM, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL STATEMENT OF THE CASE This is an appeal from the final rejection of claims 35–46. We have jurisdiction to review the case under 35 U.S.C. §§ 134 and 6. The invention relates generally to an interactive email and calendaring system that automatically schedules, modifies, and notifies users and clients of upcoming appointments and any changes associated therewith. Spec. ¶ 2. Independent claims 35 and 41, reproduced below, are further illustrative of the claimed subject matter. 35. An automated interactive email calendar system comprising: a database maintaining a master interactive calendar, said master calendar maintained on a storage device accessible by a host party via a hardware device having a user interface; and Appeal 2012-000906 Application 11/737,562 2 an email delivery system configured to automatically email a database schedule calendar to a hardware device having a user interface accessible by a client, said database schedule calendar being live and within the body of the email such that the client is able to interact directly with the database schedule calendar in the body of the email without accessing any specified software application relative to opening the database schedule calendar, said email delivery system further configured to automatically email, responsive to interaction by the client with the database schedule calendar, an accepted or modified database schedule calendar back to the storage device causing the interactive calendar to be modified automatically. 41. A method of operating an automated interactive email calendar system comprising: a computer network configured to facilitate the following steps: maintaining a master interactive calendar in a database on a storage device accessible by a host party via a hardware device with a user interface; automatically emailing a database schedule calendar to a client via a hardware device having a user interface, said database schedule calendar being live and within the body of the email such that the client is able to interact directly with the database schedule calendar in the body of the email without accessing any specified software application relative to opening the database schedule calendar; and automatically emailing, responsive to interaction by the client with the database schedule calendar, an accepted or modified database schedule calendar back to the storage device causing the master calendar to be modified automatically. Claims 41–46 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 112, second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which Appellants regard as the invention. Appeal 2012-000906 Application 11/737,562 3 Claims 35, 40, 41, and 45 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Rapp (US 2002/0116232 A1; pub. Aug. 22, 2002), Zimbra, Zimlets™—A Mechanism for Integrating Disparate Information Systems and Content with the Zimbra Collaboration Suite™ (ZCS) 1–38 (Jan. 2006) (hereinafter “Zimbra.com”), Schemers (US 2009/0100347 A1; pub. Apr. 16, 2009), and Sue Mosher, Outlook: Emailing an Outlook Calendar—A Web Exclusive from Windows IT Pro (Mar. 2002), http://windowsitpro.com/articles/print.cfm?articleid=24456 (last visited Oct. 30, 2009) (hereinafter “Mosher”). Claims 36–39, 42–44, and 46 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Rapp, Zimbra.com, Mosher, and Charlie Russel et al., Special Edition Using® Microsoft® Office Outlook® 2003 1–2 (Sept. 2003), http://proquest.safaribooksonline.com/0-7897-2956-3 (last visited Oct. 30, 2009) (hereinafter “Russel”). We AFFIRM. ANALYSIS Claim Construction Independent claim 35 recites “said database schedule calendar being live and within the body of the email such that the client is able to interact directly with the database schedule calendar in the body of the email without accessing any specified software application relative to opening the database schedule calendar.” The Specification does not recite explicitly the aforementioned limitation. Appellants cite paragraphs 19 to 22 of the Specification as providing written description support for the aforementioned limitation. App. Br. 7–8. Of those cited paragraphs, we identify the following portion as the most germane: Appeal 2012-000906 Application 11/737,562 4 The notification email 314 may also include a calendar 400 providing alternative appointment dates and times as illustrated in Fig. 4. Although only 10 days are shown in the figure, more or fewer numbers of days may be displayed on the calendar 400. The date/time slots that are not available 402 may be omitted or blocked from the calendar 400. When the client receives the notification email 314, the client need only click on the desired date/time slot on the calendar 400. Once selected, a pop-up window (not shown) similar to that in Fig. 2 may appear and allow the client to enter or edit his or her information including preferred treatments and start/stop time. The pop-up window can also include other information relevant to the appointment. By changing and saving the data in the pop-up window, a scheduled appointment (not shown) similar to that in Fig. 2 may be automatically created in the calendar. Spec. ¶ 21; emphasis added. Accordingly, under a broadest reasonable construction, the “said database schedule calendar” limitation is met when user interactions performed within a body of an email message cause interaction with another application, without opening the other application, in this case, a database scheduler calendar. This construction is consistent with the following remarks made by Appellants in an Amendment (“Amdt.”) filed September 8, 2009 in response to the Non-Final Office Action (“Non- Final Act.”) mailed March 6, 2009, which introduced the aforementioned limitation: As discussed in the examiner interview, the present system allows a client to interact with a database schedule calendar in the body of an email. That is, there [sic] client does not need to open any software application to access the database schedule calendar. For example, when an attachment is sent via email, the recipient must own or have access to the software application (e.g., Word, Excel, Adobe) necessary to open the attachment. Not so with the embodiments of the present Appeal 2012-000906 Application 11/737,562 5 invention since the database schedule calendar is available to the client within the body of the email. Amdt. 6–7; emphasis added. Indefiniteness Rejection of Independent Claim 411 We are not persuaded the Examiner erred in asserting that independent claim 41 is indefinite, because it is unclear whether independent claim 41 is directed to an apparatus or a method. App. Br. 11. Appellants cite IPXL Holdings, L.L.C. v. Amazon.com, Inc., 430 F.3d 1377 (Fed. Cir. 2005) for the proposition that hybrid claims are invalid if a third party is unable to determine when and how infringement occurs. Appellants assert that such a situation is not present here because “in this instance, such is not a concern as it is clear when the claim is infringed. That is, if a third party utilizes a computer network to facilitate the method steps as recited, the claim would be infringed.” Id. We are not persuaded that independent claim 41 provides such clarity. Fundamentally, the preamble of independent claim 41 recites that it is a method, but the only limitation is an apparatus limitation “configured to facilitate the following steps.” As a method claim requires some action in order to be infringed, it is unclear what action is required in conjunction with the apparatus limitation in order to infringe. For example, possible actions could include possession of the apparatus, usage of the apparatus without actually implementing the recited steps, usage of the apparatus by implementing the recited steps, and accessing the 1 Of the claims rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 112, second paragraph, Appellants only sets forth arguments for independent claim 41. Accordingly, we chose independent claim 41 as representative of claims 41– 46. 37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(1)(vii) (2011). Appeal 2012-000906 Application 11/737,562 6 apparatus. Through their remarks, Appellants appear to be asserting that the recitation of the apparatus limitation implicitly requires only mere possession. Such a requirement is not clear, however, from the current claim language for the reasons set forth above. We sustain the indefiniteness rejection of claims 41–46. Obviousness Rejection of Claims 35, 40, 41, and 452 We are not persuaded the Examiner erred in asserting that a combination of Rapp, Zimbra.com, Schemers, and Mosher discloses or suggests “said database schedule calendar being live and within the body of the email such that the client is able to interact directly with the database schedule calendar in the body of the email without accessing any specified software application relative to opening the database schedule calendar,” as recited in independent claim 35. App. Br. 11–13; Reply Br. 3–4. The main disagreement between Appellants and the Examiner is whether or not a user’s interaction with an e-mail message in the collaboration suite application of Schemers properly corresponds to the aforementioned claim limitation. Specifically, Appellants’ position appears to be that the collaboration suite application of Schemers corresponds to the recited “specified software application,” and, thus, the e-mail message in Schemers is interacted with only via a “specified software application,” which contravenes the aforementioned claim limitation. We disagree. As set forth above, the “said database schedule calendar” limitation is met when user interactions performed within a body of an email message 2 Appellants argue together claims 35, 40, 41, and 45. Accordingly, we chose independent claim 35 as representative of claims 35, 40, 41, and 45. 37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(1)(vii) (2011). Appeal 2012-000906 Application 11/737,562 7 cause interaction with another application, without opening the other application, in this case, a database scheduler calendar. Schemers discloses a user viewing an email via a collaboration suite application, and then performing the following: For instance, if a user mouses over a date content object in an email, the appointments in the user’s calendar for that day may be visible in a small tool-tip or window. This is illustrated in a screenshot in FIG. 4A. As another example, if a user right- clicks on a date content object, a context menu may appear, which may make it possible for the user to add a new appointment for that day, add a new all day appointment for that day, and/or to search emails associated with that day. This is illustrated in a screenshot in FIG. 4B. As described in above, an advantage of this is that the user can view, edit and/or add appointments to a day without opening up the calendar application in the collaboration suite application. The user can simply continue to view a mailbox item (such as an email, a contact, etc.), and seamlessly take these steps of editing, viewing and/or adding appointments to a day. ¶ 53; Fig. 4A; emphasis added. Because the user of Schemer interacts within the body of the email message and causes interaction with the calendar application, without opening the calendar application, the aforementioned limitation is met. Appellants assert further that both Rapp and Zimbra.com are web- based applications requiring an Internet connection to click-on and activate links within emails. Appellants’ assertion is misplaced, as nothing in the claim precludes any of web-based applications, Internet connections, and activating links within emails. Appellants also assert that Zimbra.com and Schemers only disclose updating a personal calendar, and not automatically updating a master calendar on a different computer, as recited in independent claim 35. Appeal 2012-000906 Application 11/737,562 8 Appellants’ assertion is misplaced, as Rapp is cited for disclosing the aforementioned limitations of independent claim 35. Ans. 7–8. We sustain the rejection of claims 35, 40, 41, and 45. Obviousness Rejection of Dependent Claims 36–39, 42–44, and 46 Appellants set forth the same arguments for dependent claims 36–39, 42–44, and 46 as were set forth above for the independent claims from which they depend. Our analysis is the same as set forth supra, and need not be repeated here. DECISION The decision of the Examiner to reject claims 35–46 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). See 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a)(1)(iv). AFFIRMED hh Copy with citationCopy as parenthetical citation