Ex Parte Isaacson

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Sep 27, 2016

12116363 (P.T.A.B. Sep. 27, 2016)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE
12/116,363 05/07/2008
47699 7590 09/29/2016
HA YNES AND BOONE, LLP (26530)
IP Section
2323 Victory A venue
Suite 700
Dallas, TX 75219
FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
Scott Isaacson
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
ATTORNEY DOCKET NO. CONFIRMATION NO.
26530.144 (IDR-1276) 6935
EXAMINER
JOSEPH, TONY A S
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
3628
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
09/29/2016 ELECTRONIC
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.
Notice of the Office communication was sent electronically on above-indicated "Notification Date" to the
following e-mail address( es):
ipdocketing@haynesboone.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte SCOTT ISAACSON
Appeal2014-007686 1
Application 12/116,363
Technology Center 3600
Before, MURRIEL E. CRAWFORD, JOSEPH A. FISCHETTI, and
MICHAEL W. KIM, Administrative Patent Judges.
CRAWFORD, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
STATEMENT OF CASE
Appellant seeks our review under 35 U.S.C. § 134 from the
Examiner's final rejection of claims 1-20. We have jurisdiction under 35
U.S.C. § 6(b).
We REVERSE.
1 Appellant identifies NOVELL, INC. as the real party in interest. Br. 3.
Appeal2014-007686
Application 12/116,363
Appellant's invention is directed generally to displaying multiple time
zones in an online calendar. (Spec., para. 9).
Claim 1 is illustrative:
1. A method for presenting a view of a calendar on an
electronic display, the method comprising:
presenting on the display a entry corresponding to a
scheduled meeting having at least two participants;
presenting on the display a first timeline associated with a
first one of the participants, the first timeline comprising an
incremental listing of time of day in accordance with a first time
zone associated with the first one of the participants;
presenting on the display a second timeline adjacent the
first timeline, the second timeline associated with a second one
of the participants and comprising an incremental listing of time
of day in accordance with a second time zone associated with the
second one of the participants, wherein the second time zone is
different than the first time zone, wherein the entry
corresponding to the scheduled meeting is presented on the
display relative to the first and second time lines to thereby
reflect start and end times of the scheduled meeting relative to
each of the first and second time zones; and
responsive to selection of the entry corresponding to the
scheduled meeting presented on the display relative to the first
and second timelines, presenting on the display a meeting view
including the first and second timelines for the scheduled
meeting to which the selected entry corresponds.
Appellant appeals the following rejections.
Claims 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 112, second paragraph, as
indefinite.
Claims 1, 2, 6-9, 12-16, and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a)
as unpatentable over Edlund (US 2005/0102245 Al, pub. May 12, 2005),
2
Appeal2014-007686
Application 12/116,363
Rokosz (US 2006/0241998 Al, pub. Oct. 26, 2006), and Narayanaswami
(US 2008/0109718 Al, pub. May 8, 2008).
Claims 3-5, 10, 11, and 17-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a)
as unpatentable over Edlund, Rokosz, Narayanaswami, and Baber (US
5,323,314, iss. June 21, 1994).
ANALYSIS
Rejection of Claims 1-20 under 35 U.S. C. § 112, Second Paragraph
We are persuaded by Appellant's arguments that the "to thereby"
language of each independent claim is not indefinite, because the ordinary
artisan would understand the meaning of the language. Br. 8-11.
Each of independent claims 1, 8, and 15 recites a calendar entry is
"presented on the display relative to the first and second time lines to
thereby reflect start and end times of the scheduled meeting relative to each
of the first and second time zones." We construe the meaning of "to
thereby" not as intended use, as the Examiner asserts (Final Act. 3), but as
meaning that the manner in which the entry is displayed has the effect of
showing start and end times relative to the displayed time zones.
We are also persuaded by Appellant's arguments that the language of
claims 3, 10, and 17 are not indefinite, because the claim language clearly
indicates that the additional entry is displayed "relative" to the first
displayed entry, such as in Appellant's Figure 3. Br. 11-12. The
Examiner's position, that it is not clear whether the second entry is displayed
on the same display as the first entry, or on a second display, is refuted by
the clear language of the claim that "the second scheduled meeting is
presented on the display relative to the first and third timelines." The second
3
Appeal2014-007686
Application 12/116,363
meeting, therefore, must be displayed on the same display as the first
meeting entry.
For these reasons we do not sustain the rejection of claims 1-20 as
indefinite.
Rejection of Claims l, 2, 6--9, 12-16, and 20 under 35U.S.C.§103(a)
Each of independent claims 1, 8, and 15 recites language substantially
equivalent to "responsive to selection of the entry corresponding to the
scheduled meeting presented on the display relative to the first and second
timelines, presenting on the display a meeting view including the first and
second timelines for the scheduled meeting to which the selected entry
corresponds."
The claims display one view of a calendar, and then switch to a
"meeting view" upon selection of a calendar event. The initial view and
"meeting view" are not limited in scope by the claim language, and are not
defined or described by the Specification. There are, however, two views,
where the "meeting view" is presented upon selection of a meeting event.
We are persuaded by Appellant's argument that the cited sections of
Narayanaswami disclose displaying a map view with the location of
meetings, but this is not in response to selecting a displayed meeting entry,
as claimed. Narayanaswami, at Figure 4, discloses a "map view" that shows
the location of calendar entries associated with physical locations, and a
calendar view that shows a series of events in a prior art "time view," at
Figure 2. In rejecting claim 1, the Examiner cites to Narayanaswami's
Figures 2 and 3, and paragraphs 13 and 29. Final Act. 4--5. Paragraph 29
describes the prior art "calendar view" in Figure 2, which is shown below:
4
Appeal2014-007686
Application 12/116,3 63
8.30-9.15am Dentist - O!d Village Road
10-11am Meet with FOAK Team: J2-B34
11-Nooo Vls!on.s of Changing World - Gehry: GNF15
12. 15 Return Pleasanlville Library books
12.30pm Pick up sandwich - SoGood Dell
t~2.30pm Paul Hom Kickoff: Yorktown Auditorium
3-4pm Weekly Dept. Meeting 3SK29
4-5pm Interview John Doe: My office
5.15pm Leave for airport
6-9pm AA 239 HPN: 6.35pm
January 23rd 2006
Figure 2 ofNarayanaswami depicts a time/calendar view.
Figure 3 ofNarayanaswami is a flow chart. Paragraph 13 describes a
map view, which displays calendar entries on a map at the location of the
event, and is shown below at Figure 4 ofNarayanaswami:
5
Appeal2014-007686
Application 12/116,363
Figure 4 ofNarayanaswami depicts a map view with calendar entries at
specific map locations.
It is not clear from the Examiner's rejection and response to argument
which of the views in Narayanaswami, such as the calendar view and map
view, correspond to the claimed view, from which an entry is selected, or
meeting view, displayed in response to the selecting. However, paragraphs
13 and 29 do not disclose selecting an event to display a different view, as
claimed. For example, Narayanaswami discloses to switch between map
and calendar views "a user can simply depress a button on the menu, or on
the device," or double-click on the map. Narayanaswami, paras. 41, 42.
This does not involve selecting a calendar entry, as claimed.
Narayanaswami also discloses "[i]f a user just wants to view more
detailed information about an event, the user can perhaps select the event by
single-clicking on its legend on the map or just hovering over it with a
cursor." Narayanaswami, para. 41. This is in line with the Examiner's
statement that N arayanaswami could be combined with Edlund and Rokosz
"to provide more information." Final Act. 5. However, the references do
6
Appeal2014-007686
Application 12/116,363
not suggest what additional "detailed information" would be desirable to
display in addition to that already displayed in the combination of Edlund
and Rokosz. Narayanaswami, for example, does not consider a map of a
meeting location for a particular event to be something that would be
presented as a form of more detailed information in a meeting event, because
this option is provided to switch from a map view to a view with more
detailed information about an event. No map view is present in Edlund and
Rokosz, and, thus, no information is restricted from display in either of these
two disclosures leading to a reason to select an event to show more
information, because in Edlund, Figure 4, it appears that the display only
presents detailed information about an event, as shown below.
Edlund, Figure 4, depicts a calendar entry for a meeting.
Appellant also argues that there is no reason to display "more
information." Br. 18. We agree with Appellant, because it is unclear what
7
Appeal2014-007686
Application 12/116,363
would lead the ordinary artisan, after viewing the combination of Edlund
and Rokosz, to select an event to get more information.
The Examiner has not established that the viewing of more detailed
information about an event, from a map view, in paragraph 41 of
Narayanaswami, corresponds to displaying the claimed meeting view in
response to selecting an event. In addition, the references do not disclose,
and the Examiner has not advanced the idea of, selecting a meeting entry
from the calendar/time view in Figure 2 ofNarayanaswami to display more
information about the meeting, such as in Figure 4 of Edlund. The
Examiner, thus, has not established a prima facie case of obviousness,
because the selecting of a calendar entry to present a meeting view has not
been shown to be disclosed in the cited portions of the prior art references.
For these reasons, we do not sustain the rejection of independent
claims 1, 8, and 15, nor of dependent claims 2, 6, 7, 16 and 20 that were
rejected along with claims 1 and 15.
Claims 3-5, 10, 11, and 17-19
The Examiner has not established on the record that Baber remedies
the shortcomings with Narayanaswami set forth above. For this reason we
do not sustain the rejection of claims 3-5 and 17-19 that depend from claims
1 and 15.
8
Appeal2014-007686
Application 12/116,363
DECISION
We reverse the rejection of claims 1-20 under 35 U.S.C. § 112,
second paragraph.
We reverse the rejections of claims 1-20 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a).
REVERSED
9