11769564 (B.P.A.I. Feb. 16, 2011)

Ex Parte Hodgin

Board of Patent Appeals and InterferencesFeb 16, 2011

11769564 (B.P.A.I. Feb. 16, 2011)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE ____________ BEFORE THE BOARD OF PATENT APPEALS AND INTERFERENCES ____________ Ex parte RYAN E. HODGIN ____________ Appeal 2010-001017 Application 11/769,564 Technology Center 3600 ____________ Before: MURRIEL E. CRAWFORD, ANTON W. FETTING, and JOSEPH A. FISCHETTI, Administrative Patent Judges. CRAWFORD, 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 2010-001017 Application 11/769,564 2 STATEMENT OF THE CASE This is an appeal from the final rejection of claims 1-25. We have jurisdiction to review the case under 35 U.S.C. §§ 134 and 6 (2002). The claimed invention is generally directed to systems and methods for automatically tracking and managing time (Spec., para. [0001]). Claim 1, reproduced below, is further illustrative of the claimed subject matter. 1. A system comprising a time tracking tool stored on a computer readable medium and configured to be integrated with an instant messaging system, the time tracking tool configured to associate a received instant message with one or more projects and track a session time in which the received instant message is active. Claims 1-10 and 12-24 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) as anticipated by Kung (US Pat. 6,917,610 B1, iss. Jul. 12, 2005); claim 11 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Kung in view of Fair (US Pub. 2001/0056389 A1, pub. Dec. 27, 2001); and claim 25 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Kung.2 We AFFIRM. ISSUES Did the Examiner err in asserting that Kung anticipates the subject matter of independent claims 1, 12, and 20? Did the Examiner err in asserting that Kung anticipates the subject matter of dependent claims 2-10, 13-19, and 21-24? 2 The Examiner withdrew the rejection of claims 1-19 under 35 U.S.C. § 101 (See Exam’r’s Ans. 2). Appeal 2010-001017 Application 11/769,564 3 Did the Examiner err in asserting that a combination of Kung and Fair renders obvious the subject matter of dependent claim 11? Did the Examiner err in asserting that Kung renders obvious the subject matter of dependent claim 25? FINDINGS OF FACT We adopt the Examiner’s findings of fact, as set forth on pages 3-14 and 16-17 of the Examiner’s Answer. ANALYSIS Independent Claims 1, 12, and 20 We are not persuaded that the Examiner erred in asserting that Kung anticipates the subject matter of independent claims 1, 12, and 20 (App. Br. 10-18). Appellant asserts that Kung does not disclose associating instant messaging information with one or more projects (App. Br. 11-12, 14-18). Appellant also asserts that Kung does not disclose tracking a session time in which the received instant messaging is active (App. Br. 11-18). We adopt the Examiner’s reasoning is response to Appellant’s arguments, as set forth on pages 10-11 of the Examiner’s Answer. Dependent Claims 2-10, 13-19, and 21-24 We are not persuaded the Examiner erred in asserting that Kung anticipates the subject matter of dependent claims 2-10, 13-19, and 21-24 (App. Br. 18-33). Concerning dependent claim 2, Appellant asserts that record 840 and client billing number 811 of Kung do not respectively correspond to the recited time tracking tool and project association engine Appeal 2010-001017 Application 11/769,564 4 (App. Br. 18-19). Concerning dependent claims 3, 14, and 19, Appellant asserts that Kung does not disclose associating senders or texts of instant messages and one or more projects (App. Br. 19-20, 26, 29-30). Concerning dependent claim 6, Appellant asserts that col. 32, lines 10-18 of Kung do not disclose “storing individual time tracking records for separate projects of the one or more projects” (App. Br. 22-23). Concerning dependent claim 7, Appellant asserts that Figure 8 of Kung does not disclose the recited “saved time history component” (App. Br. 23). Concerning dependent claim 8, Appellant asserts that col. 15, lines 36-40 of Kung do not disclose the recited “time tracking tool” (App. Br. 23-24). Concerning dependent claims 13 and 15, Appellant asserts that they respectively depend from allowable independent claims 1 and 12 (App. Br. 33). Concerning dependent claims 16 and 17, Appellant asserts that Kung does not disclose the recited “computer infrastructure” (App. Br. 26-28). Concerning dependent claim 21, Appellant asserts that col. 15 and Figure 8 of Kung do not disclose that “the system correlates the received instant message with the one or more projects for purposed of billing and the billing is based on an amount of time spent on the one or more projects for a particular period of time” (App. Br. 30-31). We adopt the Examiner’s reasoning in response to these assertions concerning dependent claims 2, 3, 6-8, 13-17, 19, and 21-24, as set forth on pages 5-9 and 13-18 of the Examiner’s Answer. With regards to dependent claim 4, Appellant asserts that system management server 216 of Kung does not correspond to the recited project settings component (App. Br. 21). However, Kung discloses that system management server 216 “may be configured to provide management of Appeal 2010-001017 Application 11/769,564 5 various database functions,” which would include user settings for managing the database that includes the IM sessions activity log (col. 4, ll. 4-14; col. 9, ll. 14-26). With regards to dependent claim 5, the company/client billing number corresponds to the recited group, and the e-mail address/contacted party’s name corresponds to the recited senders that are associated with the recited group (col. 31, ll. 25-27). The group is dynamic because any new incoming e-mail addresses/contacted party’s names will be associated with the listed company/client billing number, and thus the list of incoming e-mail addresses/contacted party’s names associated with a specific company/client billing number will change. With regards to dependent claim 9, while the portions of Kung cited by the Examiner do not explicitly disclose a billing rate, at least Figure 8 discloses a duration and cost. A billing rate is necessary to convert the duration into cost. Dependent claim 10 recites “information related to the received instant message and the one or more projects” (emphasis added). Kung discloses an instant message with associated company name and client billing number, which is sufficient to meet the recited one project (col. 4, ll. 4-14). With regards to dependent claim 18, Kung discloses that a user can alter displayed information, which would include altering/setting the company/client billing number field (i.e., project) associated with the instant message (col. 4, ll. 4-14; col. 33, ll. 34-39). Appeal 2010-001017 Application 11/769,564 6 Dependent Claim 11 We are not persuaded the Examiner erred in asserting that a combination of Kung and Fair renders obvious the subject matter of dependent claim 11 (App. Br. 33-34). We adopt the Examiner’s reasoning, as set forth on pages 17-18 of the Examiner’s Answer. Dependent Claims 25 We are not persuaded the Examiner erred in asserting that Kung renders obvious the subject matter of dependent claim 25 (App. Br. 34-35). The Examiner admits that “Kung does not explicitly disclose wherein, after the received instant message is associated with the one or more projects and is determined by a user to be correct, the time tracking tool tracks the session time in which the received instant message is active,” as recited in dependent claim 25 (Exam’r’s Ans. 10). However, the Examiner then asserts that it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to modify the invention as disclosed by Kung to include verifying that the communication is associated with the correct client billing number, project, in order to not bill the wrong client and therefore maintain customer service. (Exam’r’s Ans. 10). Appellant has not identified any flaws in the Examiner’s reasoning. See In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 426 (CCPA 1981) (once a prima facie case of obviousness is established, the burden shifts to appellant to rebut it). Accordingly, we sustain this rejection. Appeal 2010-001017 Application 11/769,564 7 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) (2007). AFFIRMED hh IBM CORPORATION IPLAW SHCB/40-3 1701 NORTH STREET ENDICOTT, NY 13760