Ex parte KAHL et al.

Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences

Jan 29, 1999

08250302 (B.P.A.I. Jan. 29, 1999)

Application for patent filed May 26, 1994. According to appellants, the1
application is a continuation of Application 07/808,112, filed December 16, 1991.
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publication in a law journal and (2) is not binding precedent of the Board.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. 19
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
__________
BEFORE THE BOARD OF PATENT APPEALS
AND INTERFERENCES
__________
Ex parte DARYL J. KAHL,
RAYMOND E. LEE, and
ROBERT J. TORRES
__________
Appeal No. 96-1317
Application 08/250,3021
__________
ON BRIEF
__________
Before THOMAS, BARRETT, and TORCZON, Administrative Patent Judges.
THOMAS, Administrative Patent Judge.
Appeal No. 96-1317
Application 08/250,302
2
DECISION ON APPEAL
Appellants have appealed to the Board from the examiner’s final rejection of claims
7, 11 to 13, 17, 18 and 20 to 24, which constitute all the claims remaining in the
application.
Representative claim 7 is reproduced below:
7. A method of presenting a monthly calendar view of an electronic calendar in a
computer system having a display screen, comprising the steps of:
displaying a two dimensional pictorial representation of a monthly scheduling
calendar in which a first dimension segments time by weeks of a month and a second
dimension which segments time by days of a week, said representation displayed on a
single display screen panel in order to allow a user to see all days in a month
simultaneously;
displaying textual information comprising at least a start time and an event summary
for any event scheduled on any day on said monthly scheduling calendar; and
interactively editing said information directly on said monthly scheduling calendar
without opening any other display screen panels.
The following references are relied on by the examiner:
Fersko-Weiss, PackRat (PackRat), PC Magazine, 11/27/98, p. 414
Symantec, TIME LINE User Manual (TIME LINE), 1990, pages 5-3 to 5-5, 5-14, 6-2 to 6-6,
9-8
Appeal No. 96-1317
Application 08/250,302
3
Claims 7, 11 through 13, 17, 18 and 20 to 24 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103. As evidence of obviousness, the examiner relies upon TIME LINE in view of
PackRat.
Rather than repeat the positions of the appellants and the examiner, reference is
made to the Brief and the Answer for the respective details thereof.
Opinion
We reverse.
Independent claims 7 and 13 are respective method and apparatus versions of
appellants’ disclosed textual information display feature, whereas the subject matter of
method claim 20 relates to appellants’ disclosed vertical busy bar feature.
If we assume for the sake of argument that it would have been proper within
35 U.S.C. § 103 from an artisan’s perspective to have combined the teachings of PackRat
and Time Line, we conclude that the result would not be the subject matter set forth in
independent claims 7 and 13 on appeal as well as independent claim 20. This reasoning
of combinability would be based upon the project management approaches discussed in
each reference. The combined features appear to us, according to the reasoning of the
examiner, to have been based upon picking and choosing bits and pieces of the
respective claimed features from both references. We are unable to conclude and are not
Appeal No. 96-1317
Application 08/250,302
4
persuaded by the examiner’s reasoning that the monthly calendar shown in the upper-left
portion of the middle Figure of page 414 of PackRat would have been modified by the
additional showings and teachings in this reference, further in view of TIME LINE’s
showings, to yield a display of textual information comprising at least a start time and an
event summary for any event schedule on any day and to have done so on the monthly
scheduling calendar itself. PackRat also shows in addition to the monthly calendar, a
weekly calendar as well as a day schedule. But there is no showing or teaching in this
reference, even as modified by TIME LINE, which would have persuaded us that it would
have been obvious to have modified or combined features to present textual information of
the noted two types on the monthly calendar itself. Appellants’ claimed invention is a
straightforward view of discreet features that may be found in each reference.
Furthermore, as to the editing feature of claims 7 and 13, it does not appear to us from our
understanding of both references that editing would occur without opening any other
additional display panel. We are not persuaded by the examiner’s reasoning to correlate
teachings of both references to the rather straightforward features cited in independent
claims 7 and 13 on appeal.
Turning lastly to the subject matter of independent claim 20 on appeal, the two-
dimensional pictorial representation of the monthly scheduling calendar shown in the large
figure in the middle of page 414 of PackRat is identical to that which has been set forth in
Appeal No. 96-1317
Application 08/250,302
5
claims 7 and 13 on appeal. However, we are unable to agree with the examiner’s
conclusion of the obviousness of displaying any events scheduled on any day of said
calendar on the calendar itself and to further do so in a vertically stacked manner.
PackRat’s weekly calendar showing for any given day to the upper-right of his figure is
horizontally-based for any day. The apparent busy bars for the day schedule portion at the
bottom of PackRat’s figure appear to be, in one sense, vertically stacked but they are not
shown to be displayed on the overall calendar for the whole month itself. There is nothing
that we can derive from and are not persuaded by the examiner’s reasoning of the
combinability from TIME LINE to modify these depictions. The GANTT outline shown at the
bottom of page 5-3 of TIME LINE may be construed as vertically stacked, but is arranged
in such a manner as to overlap the days, weeks, and months, and is not taught or
suggested to be depicted on any given monthly calendar.
Appeal No. 96-1317
Application 08/250,302
6
In conclusion, the examiner’s decision to reject all pending claims on appeal under
35 U.S.C. § 103 is reversed.
REVERSED
)
JAMES D. THOMAS )
Administrative Patent Judge )
)
)
) BOARD OF PATENT
LEE E. BARRETT )
Administrative Patent Judge ) APPEALS AND
)
) INTERFERENCES
)
RICHARD TORCZON )
Administrative Patent Judge )
Appeal No. 96-1317
Application 08/250,302
7
Edward H. Duffield
IBM Corp., Intellectual Property Law
T81B/062
3039 Cornwallis Road
P.O. Box 12195
Research Triangle Park, NC 27709-2195
JDT/cam