Ex parte FITZPATRICK et al.

Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences

Aug 26, 1997

08037983 (B.P.A.I. Aug. 26, 1997)

Application for patent filed March 25, 1993.1
1
THIS OPINION WAS NOT WRITTEN FOR PUBLICATION
The opinion in support of the decision being entered today (1)
was not written for publication in a law journal and (2) is not
binding precedent of the Board.
Paper No. 15
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
__________
BEFORE THE BOARD OF PATENT APPEALS
AND INTERFERENCES
__________
Ex parte GREGORY P. FITZPATRICK and MARVIN L. WILLIAMS
__________
Appeal No. 96-2097
Application 08/037,9831
___________
ON BRIEF
___________
Before URYNOWICZ, MARTIN and LEE, Administrative Patent Judges.
URYNOWICZ, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
This appeal is from the final rejection of claims 1-18, all
the claims pending in the application.
The invention pertains to scheduling a meeting between two
entities (a "requester" and a "target") when a conflicting event
Appeal No. 96-2097
Application 08/037,983
2
appears on an electronic calendar of the target at the requested
meeting time. Claim 1 is illustrative and reads as follows:
1. A method, performed in a data processing system, for
scheduling a meeting between a requester and a target on an
electronic calendar maintained on the data processing system by
the target, wherein said requester and said target are separate
entities, the method comprising the computer implemented steps
of:
determining, in response to an input, to the data processing
system, of a date, a time and a duration of a proposed meeting
between the requester and the target, that a conflicting event
appears on the electronic calendar maintained on the data
processing system by the target for the date and time and during
the duration input to the data processing system;
in response to a selection, by the requester, upon the
determination that a conflicting event appears on the electronic
calendar maintained by the target, to monitor the electronic
calendar maintained by the target for the removal of the
conflicting event, and also in response to the determination that
the conflicting event appears on the electronic calendar
maintained by the target, monitoring the electronic calendar
maintained by the target to detect the removal of the conflicting
event from the electronic calendar maintained by the target; and
scheduling a meeting between the requester and the target on
the electronic calendar maintained by the target, in response to
the detection of the removal of the conflicting event from the
electronic calendar maintained by the target.
The references relied upon by the examiner as evidence of
obviousness are:
Hotaling et al. (Hotaling) 5,124,912 Jun. 23, 1992
McGaughey, III et al. (McGaughey) 4,977,520 Dec. 11, 1990
Appeal No. 96-2097
Application 08/037,983
3
The appealed claims stand rejected as unpatentable over
Hotaling in view of McGaughey under 35 U.S.C. § 103.
The positions of the examiner and the appellants with regard
to the propriety of these rejections are set forth in the final
rejection (Paper No. 6), the appellants' brief (Paper No. 10) and
the examiner's answer (Paper No. 14).
Appellants' Invention
Appellants disclose an electronic calendaring system which
determines, in response to an input of a date, time and duration
of a proposed meeting between a meeting requester and a second
party (target), that a conflicting event appears on the target's
electronic calendar, monitors the target's electronic calendar to
detect the removal of the conflicting event, and schedules a
meeting between the requester and the target on their electronic
calendars in response to the detection of the removal of the
conflicting event.
The Prior Art
Hotaling discloses a method performed in a data processing
system for scheduling a meeting between a requester and a target
on an electronic calendar. The system determines, in response to
an input from a requester to a file separate from each target's
personal calendar, a date, time and duration of a proposed
Appeal No. 96-2097
Application 08/037,983
4
meeting between the requester and the target (column 1, lines 35-
43). The apparatus compares the data for each target's calendar
for available and unavailable time periods within the times and
dates specified by the requester, and the comparison results in a
determination of at least one common date and time for all
specified targets within the specified time requirements of the
requester (column 1, lines 40-51).
McGaughey discloses an electronic calendaring system for
allowing a target to respond to an electronic meeting notice by
accepting or rejecting the invitation to attend the meeting based
on the target's calendar (column 4, lines 26-39).
The Rejection under 35 U.S.C. § 103
We reverse the rejection of appellants' claims 1-18 as
unpatentable over Hotaling in view of McGaughey under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103. With respect to the only independent claims, method claim
1 and apparatus claim 8, neither reference discloses monitoring
or means for monitoring an electronic calendar maintained by a
target to detect the removal of a conflicting event from the
calendar, or scheduling or means for scheduling a meeting between
the requester and the target on the electronic calendar
maintained by the target in response to the detection of the
Appeal No. 96-2097
Application 08/037,983
Although the claimed invention does not cause the removal2
of a conflicting event on the target's calendar as noted by
appellants, we note that a statement in the examiner's answer to
the effect that at col. 4, lines 18-48 and at FIGS. 6A and 6B
McGaughey teaches removing a conflicting event on the calendar
maintained by the target is seen to have no actual support in the
aforementioned parts of the reference.
5
removal of the conflicting event from the electronic calendar. 2
It has not been established that it would have been obvious to
one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was
made to add these features to the above prior art combination.
Motivation or suggestion in the prior art to add these features
to the prior art relied on by the examiner has not been
established. The mere fact that the prior art may be modified in
the manner suggested by the examiner does not make the
modification obvious unless the prior art suggested the
desirability of the modification. In re Fritch, 972 F.2d 1260,
1266, 23 USPQ2d 1780, 1783-84 (Fed. Cir. 1992).
Whereas the rejection of the only independent claims, claims
1 and 8, over the applied prior art is reversed, the rejection of
dependent claims 2-7 and 9-18 over that art is reversed.
REVERSED
Appeal No. 96-2097
Application 08/037,983
6
STANLEY M. URYNOWICZ, JR. )
Administrative Patent Judge )
)
)
) BOARD OF PATENT
JOHN C. MARTIN )
Administrative Patent Judge ) APPEALS AND
)
) INTERFERENCES
)
JAMISON LEE )
Administrative Patent Judge )
Appeal No. 96-2097
Application 08/037,983
7
Norman L. Gundel
IP Law
MG90-204
8501 IBM Drive
Charlotte, N.C. 28262-8503