Ex Parte Johnson et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Jun 27, 2013

11865931 (P.T.A.B. Jun. 27, 2013)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
___________

BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
___________

Ex parte CONRAD JAMES JOHNSON, JAMES EALEM SHEWBERT,
PERRY LEE STATHAM, SANDRA LEE TIPTON, and
KRISHNA KISHORE YELLEPEDDY
___________

Appeal 2011-008108
Application 11/865,931
Technology Center 3600
___________

Before MURRIEL E. CRAWFORD, ANTON W. FETTING, and
JAMES A. TARTAL, Administrative Patent Judges.
FETTING, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL

STATEMENT OF THE CASE1

Appellants seek review under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) of a non-final
rejection of twice-rejected claims 1-20, the only claims pending in the
application on appeal. We have jurisdiction over the appeal pursuant to
35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
The Appellants invented a method for integrating a calendar and task
scheduler to enable automatic scheduling of meetings and assignment of
tasks based on priority. (Spec., para. [0001]).
An understanding of the invention can be derived from a reading of
exemplary claim 1, which is reproduced below [bracketed matter and some
paragraphing added].
1. A method operable by a computer for managing a
user's tasks within an integrated calendaring and task scheduler,
the computer implemented method comprising:
creating a first task to be performed by a user in the user's
calendaring and task scheduler in the computer, wherein the
first task comprises a completion block of time;
determining if there is an available block of free time
prior to a due date of the first task in the user's calendaring and
task scheduler;
responsive to determining that there are no available
blocks of free time in the user's calendaring and task scheduler
prior to the due date of the first task, comparing a priority level
of the first task and a priority level of a meeting or second task
scheduled in the calendaring and task scheduler; and

1 Our decision will make reference to the Appellants’ Appeal Brief (“App.
Br.,” filed December 2, 2010) and Reply Brief (“Reply Br.,” filed April 14,
2011), and the Examiner’s Answer (“Ans.,” mailed February 16, 2011), and
Non-Final Rejection (“Non-Final Rej.,” mailed July 9, 2010).
responsive to determining that the priority level of the
meeting or second task is lower than the priority level of the
first task, scheduling the first task over at least a portion of a
time block of the lower priority meeting or second task.
The Examiner relies upon the following prior art:
Vincent
Barnett
US 5,050,077
US 6,369,840 B1
Sep. 17, 1991
Apr. 9, 2002
Ancier
Jalon
US 2004/0244005 A1
US 2005/0039142 A1
Dec. 2, 2004
Feb. 17, 2005
Cary US 7,370,282 B2 May 6, 2008
(filed Apr. 4, 2005)
Carro US 7,499,715 B2 Mar. 3, 2009
(filed Sep. 13, 2005)

Claims 1, 4, 8, 11, 16, and 17 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
unpatentable over Ancier and Vincent.2
Claims 2, 3, 5, 7, 10 and 12 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
unpatentable over Ancier, Vincent, and Carro.
Claim 6 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over
Ancier, Vincent, Carro, and Cary.3
Claim 9 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over
Ancier, Vincent, Barnett, and Jalon.
Claims 13 and 14 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
unpatentable over Ancier, Vincent, and Barnett.

2 We take as inadvertent error the omission of claims 16 and 17 from the
statement of rejection at Answer 3, based on the analysis of these claims at
Answer 16-18.
3 We take as inadvertent error the omission of Carro in the statement of
rejection at Answer 11-12, because claim 6 depends from claim 5.
Claim 15 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over
Ancier, Vincent, Barnett, and Carro.
Claims 18-20 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable
over Ancier, Vincent, Carro, Cary, Barnett, and Jalon.4
ISSUES
The issue of obviousness of claim 1 turns on whether Ancier discloses
comparing priority levels of two tasks in response to determining that there
are no available blocks of time.
The issue of obviousness of claim 8 turns on whether the Examiner has
set forth a prima face case of obviousness of the claim language.
FACTS PERTINENT TO THE ISSUES
The following enumerated Findings of Fact (FF) are believed to be
supported by a preponderance of the evidence.
Facts Related to the Prior Art
Ancier
01. Ancier is directed to automatically calculating the urgency of
tasks, and automatically creating prioritized task lists and
schedules based on the calculated urgencies. (Ancier, para.
[0002]).
02. Ancier discloses determining if there is an available block of free
time, in that, “the prioritization manager 101 displays 903 time on

4 See the final comment in the analysis of claim 18, Answer 19.
the plotted time grid 691 to which no task 107 has been assigned
as free time.” (Ancier, para. [0035]).
03. Ancier discloses:
The prioritization manager 101 automatically calculates an
urgency 109 for at least some of the tasks 107, based on the
assigned values 203 and associated weights 205 of at least
some of the associated qualities 201. However, rather than
creating a prioritized task list 111, the prioritization
manager 101 automatically plots tasks 107 to a time gird
601, based on the lengths of the tasks 107 and their
respective urgencies 109. The plotted time grid 601 is
essentially an automatically generated calendar, with tasks
107 allocated to appropriate times.
(Ancier, para. [0030]).
Vincent
04. Vincent is directed to methods for generating alternative meeting
schedules when desired meeting parameters cannot be met.
(Vincent, col. 1, ll. 12-15).
ANALYSIS
Claims 1, 4, 8, 11, 16, and 17 Rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
Unpatentable over Ancier and Vincent
Claims 1 and 4
We are persuaded of error by Appellants’ argument that Ancier does not
disclose comparing the priority level of a first and second task responsive to
determining that there are no available blocks of free time. Reply Br. 2-4.
See also App. Br. 11-13.
The Examiner directs us to paragraphs [0006], [0024], [0030], and
[0035] as disclosing this language. Ans. 4-5, 20. Although paragraph
[0035] discloses determining blocks of free time (FF 02), we find Ancier
discloses scheduling of a set of tasks in priority order into a calendar format,
but without comparing priorities of tasks in response to determining there
are no available blocks of free time. (FF 02). Therefore, the Examiner has
not set forth a prima facie case of obviousness because this claim language is
not disclosed by Ancier as asserted. As a result, we reverse the rejection of
claim 1 and dependent claim 4, as well as separately rejected claims 2, 3,
and 5-7.
Claims 8, 11, and 16
We are persuaded of error by Appellants’ argument that the combination
of Ancier and Vincent does not disclose the claimed limitation of
“comparing a due date of the task against a completion date of the task.”
App. Br. 14. The Examiner does not direct us to a disclosure of this claim
language, because claim 8 is rejected without separate comment, together
with claim 1, even though much of the language of the two claims is not the
same. Ans. 3-5. The Examiner appears to provide no response to the
arguments presented by Appellants as to claim 8. Therefore, we find the
Examiner has not set forth a prima case of obviousness of claim 8. As a
result, we reverse the rejection of claim 8 and dependent claims 11 and 16,
as well as separately rejected claims 9, 10, and 12-15.
Claim 17
We are not persuaded of error by Appellants’ argument that “the
Examiner has failed to state valid rejections against any of the claims.” App.
Br. 22, Reply Br. 6. We find the Examiner explicitly articulated a rejection
of claim 17 at Answer 16-18, as well as at pages 14-16 of the non-final
rejection in the Office Action mailed July 9, 2010, and at pages 16-17 of the
final rejection (over a different reference) in the Office Action mailed Nov.
25, 2009. The Appellants therefore waive any arguments specifically
directed to independent claim 17. As a result, we affirm pro forma the
rejection of claim 17 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) over Ancier and Vincent.
Claims 2, 3, 5, 7, 10 and 12 Rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
Unpatentable over Ancier, Vincent, and Carro
The rejection of these claims is reversed because they depend from
claims 1 and 8, reversed above.
Claim 6 Rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as Unpatentable over Ancier,
Vincent, Carro, and Cary
The rejection of this claim is reversed because it depends from claims 1,
4, and 5, reversed above.
Claim 9 Rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as Unpatentable over Ancier,
Vincent, Barnett, and Jalon
The rejection of this claim is reversed because it depends from claim 8,
reversed above.
Claims 13 and 14 Rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as Unpatentable over
Ancier, Vincent, and Barnett
The rejection of these claims is reversed because they depend from
claims 8 and 11, reversed above.
Claim 15 Rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as Unpatentable over Ancier,
Vincent, Barnett, and Carro
The rejection of this claim is reversed because it depends from claims 8,
11, 13, and 14, reversed above.
Claims 18-20 Rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as Unpatentable over
Ancier, Vincent, Carro, Cary, Barnett, and Jalon
We are not persuaded of error by Appellants’ argument that “the
Examiner has failed to state valid rejections against any of the claims.” App.
Br. 22, Reply Br. 6. We find the Examiner explicitly articulated a rejection
of claims 18-20 at Answer 18-19, as well as at pages 16-17 of the non-final
rejection in the Office Action mailed July 9, 2010, and at pages 18-23 of the
final rejection (over different references) in the Office Action mailed Nov.
25, 2009. The Appellants therefore waive any arguments specifically
directed to independent claim 18 and dependent claim 19 and 20. As a
result, we affirm pro forma the rejection of claims 18-20 under 35 U.S.C. §
103(a).
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
The rejection of claims 1, 4, 8, 11, and 16 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
unpatentable over Ancier and Vincent is improper.
The rejection of claim 17 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over
Ancier and Vincent is summarily affirmed.
The rejection of claims 2, 3, 5, 7, 10 and 12 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
unpatentable over Ancier, Vincent, and Carro is improper.
The rejection of claim 6 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over
Ancier, Vincent, Carro, and Cary is improper.
The rejection of claim 9 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over
Ancier, Vincent, Barnett, and Jalon is improper.
The rejection of claims 13 and 14 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
unpatentable over Ancier, Vincent, and Barnett is improper.
The rejection of claim 15 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over
Ancier, Vincent, Barnett, and Carro is improper.
The rejection of claims 18-20 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable
over Ancier, Vincent, Carro, Cary, Barnett, and Jalon is summarily affirmed.
DECISION
The rejections of claims 1-16 are reversed, and the rejections of claims
17-20 are affirmed pro forma.
To summarize, our decision is as follows.
 The rejection of claims 1, 4, 8, 11, and 16 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
unpatentable over Ancier and Vincent is reversed.
 The rejection of claims 2, 3, 5, 7, 10 and 12 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a)
as unpatentable over Ancier, Vincent, and Carro is reversed.
 The rejection of claim 6 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable
over Ancier, Vincent, Carro, and Cary is reversed.
 The rejection of claim 9 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable
over Ancier, Vincent, Barnett, and Jalon is reversed.
 The rejection of claims 13 and 14 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
unpatentable over Ancier, Vincent, and Barnett is reversed.
 The rejection of claim 15 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable
over Ancier, Vincent, Barnett, and Carro is reversed.
 The rejection of claim 17 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable
over Ancier and Vincent is sustained.
 The rejection of claims 18-20 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
unpatentable over Ancier, Vincent, Carro, Cary, Barnett, and Jalon is
sustained.
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) (2011).

AFFIRMED-IN-PART

tj