Ex Parte Jones

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Jun 15, 2016

12236253 (P.T.A.B. Jun. 15, 2016)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE
12/236,253 09/23/2008
57736 7590 06/17/2016
PATENTS ON DEMAND, PA IBM-RSW
4581 WESTON ROAD
SUITE 345
WESTON, FL 33331
FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
ANGELA RICHARDS JONES
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.
RSW920080143US1 7553
EXAMINER
FIELDS, BENJAMIN S
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
3623
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
06/17/2016 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):
brian.buchheit@patentsondemand.com
docketing 1@patentsondemand.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte ANGELA RICHARDS JONES
Appeal2014-003797 1
Application 12/236,2532
Technology Center 3600
Before HUBERT C. LORIN, BRADLEY B. BAY AT, and
AMEE A. SHAH, Administrative Patent Judges.
SHAH, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
The Appellant appeals under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Examiner's
final rejection of claims 1--4 and 10-20. We have jurisdiction under
35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We REVERSE.
1 Throughout this opinion, we refer to the Appeal Brief ("Appeal Br.," filed
Nov. 4, 2013), the Examiner's Answer ("Ans.," mailed Nov. 26, 2013), the
Final Action ("Final Act.," mailed Apr. 5, 2013), and the Specification
("Spec.," filed Sept. 23, 2008).
2 According to the Appellant, the real party in interest is International
Business Machines, Inc. Appeal Br. 3.
Appeal2014-003797
Application 12/236,253
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
The Appellant's invention is directed to "preventing scheduling
conflicts when proposing new times for calendar events." Spec.ii 1.
Claims 1, 13, and 16 are the independent claims on appeal. Claim 1 is
exemplary of the subject matter on appeal and is reproduced below:
1. A method for preventing scheduling conflicts
compnsmg:
a calendar system, comprising one or more processors
executing program instructions stored in a memory, storing an
event established by a chair within a non-transitory storage
medium of the calendaring system, said chair being a person who
is an owner of the event, wherein the event has a chair established
time and location;
the calendaring system conveying an invitation over a
network for the event to two or more of invitees, wherein each of
the two or more invitees is a user, other than the chair, of the
calendaring system who has been requested by the chair to
participate in the event;
the calendaring system receiving over the network a
proposed change for the event from one of the two or more
invitees, wherein the proposed change is a proposed time change
or a proposed location change for the event; and
the calendaring system conveying over the network the
proposed change to the chair and to the two or more invitees,
wherein the proposed change is pending approval by the chair,
wherein each of the two or more invitees see the proposed change
as a tentative entity that is pending approval by the chair, wherein
in calendars of each of the two or more invitees the calendaring
system shows the tentative entry for the event along with a
standard entry showing the chair established time and location
for the event,
wherein if the calendaring system receives input from the
chair indicating a denial of the proposed change, the calendars of
2
Appeal2014-003797
Application 12/236,253
each of the two or more invitees is updated to delete the tentative
entry, and
wherein if the calendaring system receives input from the
chair indicating an acceptance of the proposed change, the
calendaring system updates calendars of each of the two or more
invitees to convert the tentative entry for the event into a standard
event entry, and wherein the calendaring system updates
calendars of each of the two or more invitees to delete the
standard entry having the chair established time and location for
the event.
Appeal Br. 31, Claims App.
THE REJECTION
Claims 10 and 20 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 112, second
paragraph, as being indefinite. Final Act. 3. 3
Claims 1--4 and 10-20 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 102(a) as
being anticipated by Lyle (US 2008/0091504 Al, pub. Apr. 17, 2008).
FINDINGS OF FACT
We have determined that the findings of fact in the Analysis section
below are supported at least by a preponderance of the evidence. 4
3 Although the Examiner does not list that as a ground of rejection
applicable on appeal (Ans. 4) and does not address the Appellant's
arguments against this rejection, the rejection has not been expressly
withdrawn. 37 C.F.R. § 41.39(a)(l).
4 See Ethicon, Inc. v. Quigg, 849 F.2d 1422, 1427 (Fed. Cir. 1988)
(explaining the general evidentiary standard for proceedings before the
Patent Office).
3
Appeal2014-003797
Application 12/236,253
ANALYSIS
Indefiniteness - Claims 10 and 20
The Examiner finds claims 10 and 20 are indefinite because there is
no language in the claims that make a clear link between "responding to"
and some action. See Final Act. 3.
The Appellant contends that the rejection is in error because, when
considering the claim in context, "one of ordinary skill in the art can
properly determine its meets and bounds." Appeal Br. 26.
Claims 10 and 20 recite, in part, "responsive to the calendaring system
converting ... and deleting[,] ... and wherein the calendaring system
updates[,] ... the calendaring system sending meeting invitations ... "
Appeal Br. 32, 35. We agree with the Appellant that one of ordinary skill
would be able to determine meets and bounds in that there is a link between
the "responsive to" converting, deleting, and updating, and the action of
sending invitations.
Thus, we are persuaded of error on the part of the Examiner in the
rejection of claims 10 and 20 as indefinite, and we do not sustain the
rejection of the claims under 35 U.S.C. § 112.
Anticipation - Claims 1--4 and 10-20
The Appellant contends that the Examiner's rejection of independent
claim 1 under 35 U.S.C. § 102(a) is in error because Lyle does not disclose
"that invitees of a meeting can propose changes for the meeting," the
changes being possible changes "(desired by the invitee, but not yet
approved by a chair)," as required by claim 1. Appeal Br. 15-18.
4
Appeal2014-003797
Application 12/236,253
Conversely, the Examiner finds Levy discloses this feature in the
Abstract and at paragraphs 10, 15, and 24--27. See Ans. 5-6; see also Final
Act. 4.
Lyle discloses a method including "determining whether a post-
scheduled event or a pre-scheduled event conflicts with a scheduled event,"
sending an accept indication response if there is no conflict, or a cancel or
tentatively accept indication response if there is a conflict, and notifying the
sender if the recipient accepts, declines, or tentatively accepts. Lyle,
Abstract, i-f 10. Possible resolutions to schedule conflicts may include
automatically rescheduling. Id. i-f 15. For a conflicting event that is
scheduled after a pre-scheduled event, "for events that are chaired by a third
party, the system and method of the invention is configured to perform the
following functions: ... update the response from 'accept' to, e.g., 'tentative
accept ... ' [or] ... to 'decline."' Id. i-fi-124--27. For events in which the
recipient is the designated chair, the recipient can delegate the meeting to
someone else, or cancel. Id. i-fi-124--31. "In any scenario, the system and
method is configured to automatically reschedule the meeting using the
same invited attendees and meeting details." Id. i-f 32.
The Appellant's arguments are persuasive. We agree that Lyle does
not disclose a recipient other than the chair proposing a new time. See
Appeal Br. 15-16. The Examiner's findings that Lyle discloses that a user
other than the "user in charge" proposes a time change or location change
"because on vacation, etc.," and that Lyle discloses the chair being a third
party that is "one submitted by a user other than a user of the user interface
and other than the user in charge" (Ans. 6), are not adequately supported.
Rather, Lyle discloses that only the designated chair can automatically
5
Appeal2014-003797
Application 12/236,253
reschedule the time. See Lyle ilil 27-31. Moreover, the automatic
rescheduling of the time in Lyle is not "pending approval by the chair," as
required by the claim.
Thus, we are persuaded of error on the part of the Examiner in the
rejection of independent claim 1 as anticipated by Lyle, and we do not
sustain the rejection of claim 1 and dependent claims 2--4 and 10-12.
Independent claims 13 and 16 recite limitations substantially similar to those
of claim 1 regarding invitees other than the chair proposing a change
pending approval by the chair. Appeal Br. 33, 34. Thus, for the same
reasons that we do not sustain the rejection of claim 1, we also do not sustain
the rejection of independent claims 13 and 16, and of dependent claims 14,
15, and 17-20.
DECISION
The rejection of claims 1--4 and 10-20 under 35 U.S.C. § 102(a) is
REVERSED.
REVERSED
6