Ex parte Jenson et al.

Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences

Mar 31, 1999

08114979 (B.P.A.I. Mar. 31, 1999)

Application for patent filed August 31, 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(2) is not binding precedent of the Board.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. 33
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
_____________
BEFORE THE BOARD OF PATENT APPEALS
AND INTERFERENCES
_____________
Ex parte SCOTT A.JENSON
and LAWRENCE G. TESLER
_____________
Appeal No. 96-2745
Application 08/114,9791
______________
ON BRIEF
_______________
Before JERRY SMITH, BARRETT, and HECKER, Administrative Patent
Judges.
HECKER, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
This is a decision on appeal from the final
rejection of claims 1, 3, 6, 7, 10, 12, 14, 17 and 20 through
Appeal No. 96-2745
Application No. 08/114,979
-2-
23, all of the claims pending in the present application.
The invention relates to a computerized scheduler
which tracks appointments. The computer displays the
appointments and a calendar concurrently in such a way that
data can be inserted into the scheduler while the calendar
remains active, and vice versa. Hence, there is no need to
reactivate a particular view in order to manipulate its
contents because both remain active or receptive to immediate
input at all times. Referring to Appellants' Figure 3a, a one
month calendar (C) is displayed in area Ac with the selected
day (b) highlighted, and a schedule (S) is displayed in area
As. Both the calendar and schedule are active and receptive
to immediate input.
Representative claim 1 is reproduced as follows:
1. A method for controlling a scheduler on a
computer display of a pen based computer system, the method
comprising the steps of:
displaying a one-month calendar in a calendar
area on the computer display of said pen-based computer
system;
selecting at least one date on said calendar by
engaging a stylus with said computer display over said at
least one date to indicate at least one date to be displayed
in a schedule;
Appeal No. 96-2745
Application No. 08/114,979
-3-
indicating said selection of said at least one
date by modifying the image of said calendar; and
displaying a schedule in a schedule area on said
computer display for said at least one date in response to
said selecting step, wherein the schedule area does not
overlap the calendar area and both said calendar and said
schedule remain receptive to immediate input and are
concurrently displayed on said computer display, the calendar
remaining receptive to the selection of another date and the
schedule being receptive to handwritten input from said
stylus.

The Examiner relies on the following references:
Norwood 5,063,600 Nov. 5,
1991
Griffin et al. (Griffin) 5,307,086 April 26,
1994
IBM Technical Disclosure Bulletin, Vol. 26, No. 8, January
1984, pp. 4383. (IBM)
Sharp Electronic Organizer ZQ-5000 ZQ-5200 Operation Manual,
Sharp Electronic Corporation, 1990. (Sharp)
"AgentDA,", MacUser, Vol. 8, Issue 3, March 1992, p. 79,
abstract only. (AgentDA)
Mastering WORDPERFECT 5.1 & 5.2 For Windows, 1992, pp. 37-38.
(WordPerfect)
Claims 1, 3, 6 and 7 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103 as being unpatentable over Sharp in view of Norwood and
Appeal No. 96-2745
Application No. 08/114,979
-4-
IBM. Claims 10 and 12 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as
being unpatentable over Sharp in view of Norwood, IBM and
WordPerfect. Claims 14 and 21 through 23 stand rejected under
35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Sharp in view of
Norwood, IBM and AgentDA. Claims 17 and 20 stand rejected
under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Sharp in view
of IBM and Griffin.
Rather than reiterate the arguments of Appellants
and
the Examiner, reference is made to the brief and answer for
the respective details thereof.
OPINION
After a careful review of the evidence before us, we
will not sustain the rejection of claims 1, 3, 6, 7, 10, 12,
14, 17 and 20 through 23 under 35 U.S.C. § 103.
The Examiner has failed to set forth a prima facie
case. It is the burden of the Examiner to establish why one
having ordinary skill in the art would have been led to the
Appeal No. 96-2745
Application No. 08/114,979
-5-
claimed invention by the reasonable teachings or suggestions
found in the prior art, or by a reasonable inference to the
artisan contained in such teachings or suggestions. In re
Sernaker, 702 F.2d 989, 995, 217 USPQ 1, 6 (Fed. Cir. 1983).
"Additionally, when determining obviousness, the claimed
invention should be considered as a whole; there is no legally
recognizable 'heart' of the invention." Para-Ordnance Mfg. v.
SGS Importers Int’l, Inc., 73 F.3d 1085, 1087, 37 USPQ2d 1237,
1239 (Fed. Cir. 1995), citing W. L. Gore & Assocs., Inc. v.
Garlock, Inc., 721 F.2d 1540, 1548, 220 USPQ 303, 309 (Fed.
Cir. 1983), cert. denied, 469 U.S. 851 (1984).
With regard to the rejection of all claims, the
Examiner relies on the IBM reference for "teaching that a
calendar and scheduler can be displayed concurrently and be
receptive to input" (answer at page 6). The Examiner relies
on page 4383 of the IBM reference where it states "Thus, other
calendar functions are available directly from the monthly
display, and one does not have to leave the monthly display to
choose other calendar functions." Appellants argue on page 8
Appeal No. 96-2745
Application No. 08/114,979
-6-
of the brief that the IBM reference does not teach "having a
calendar and scheduler concurrently displayed and activated,
so that a user can not only view both simultaneously but also
have both remain active and thereby receptive to immediate
input." Appellants further urge that the menu programmable
keys of the IBM reference "are keys, not a displayed image,
and therefore, do not in any way correspond to the scheduler
or the scheduled area.” We agree with Appellants that the IBM
reference teaches menu programmable keys, and that these keys
do not constitute one of the claimed active display areas.
The IBM reference recites at page 4383, first two lines,
"Assigning main menu programmable keys to a monthly calendar
permits the use of the monthly calendar as a main menu."
Looking at claim 1 we find the language supporting
Appellants' position, "wherein the schedule area does not
overlap the calendar area and both said calendar and said
schedule remain receptive to immediate input and are
concurrently displayed.” As noted supra, the IBM reference
does not teach or suggest this aspect of claim 1. A thorough
review of the remaining references reveals no teaching or
Appeal No. 96-2745
Application No. 08/114,979
-7-
suggestion of the required limitation.
The Examiner appears to also argue that the
combination of Sharp and Norwood teaches the recited claim
limitation (pages 15 and 16 of the answer). However, we agree
with Appellants that "in all other parts of the Examiner's
Answer, as well as the Final Office Action, the Examiner has
correctly (emphasis added) admitted that 'Sharp does not
display both the calendar and the scheduler concurrently' and
that Norwood is cited merely for teaching a pen-based computer
system." (reply brief at page 3). We will not sustain the
rejection of claim 1.
The remaining claims on appeal also contain the
above limitations discussed in regard to claim 1 and thereby,
we will not sustain the rejection as to these claims.
We have not sustained the rejection of claims 1, 3,
6, 7, 10, 12, 14, 17 and 20 through 23 under 35 U.S.C. § 103.
Accordingly, the Examiner's decision is reversed.
Appeal No. 96-2745
Application No. 08/114,979
-8-
REVERSED
)
Jerry Smith )
Administrative Patent Judge )
)
)
) BOARD OF
) PATENT
Lee E. Barrett )
Administrative Patent Judge ) APPEALS AND
)
)
INTERFERENCES
)
Stuart N. Hecker )
Administrative Patent Judge )
dm
Paul L. Hickman
Hickman & Beyer
P.O. Box 61059
Appeal No. 96-2745
Application No. 08/114,979
-9-
Palo Alto, CA 94306