Ex Parte Leist

Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences

Feb 14, 2011

10423848 (B.P.A.I. Feb. 14, 2011)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
United States Patent and Trademark Office
Address: COMMISSIONER FOR PATENTS
P Alexandria, 0 Box 1450 Virginia 22313- 1450
www uspto gov
22879 7590 02/16/2011
HEWLETT-PACKARD COMPANY
APPLICATION NO.
EXAMINER
Intellectual Property Administration CHONG CRUZ, NADJA N
101423,848 04/25/2003 Marcie L. Leist 200901431-1 8681
FILING DATE
3404 E. armo on^ Road
Mail Stop 35
FORT COLLINS, CO 80528
I ARTUNIT I PAPERNUMBER I
FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
Please find below andlor attached an Office communication concerning this application or proceeding.
ATTORNEY DOCKET NO.
NOTIFICATION DATE
The time period for reply, if any, is set in the attached communication.
CONFIRMATION NO.
DELIVERY MODE
Notice of the Office communication was sent electronically on above-indicated "Notification Date" to the
following e-mail address(es):
0211 61201 1 ELECTRONIC
JERRY .SHORMA @ HP.COM
ipa.mail@hp.com
laura.m.clark@ hp.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04107)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE BOARD OF PATENT APPEALS
AND INTERFERENCES
Ex parte MARCIE L. LEIST
Appeal 2010-002952
Application 101423,848
Technology Center 3600
Before MURRIEL E. CRAWFORD, HUBERT C. LORIN, and
ANTON W. FETTING, Administrative Patent Judges.
FETTING, Administrative Patent Judge.
The two-month time period for filing an appeal or commencing a civil
action, as recited in 37 C.F.R. 5 1.304, or for filing a request for rehearing,
as recited in 37 C.F.R. 5 41.52, begins to run from the "MAIL DATE"
(paper delivery mode) or the "NOTIFICATION DATE" (electronic delivery
mode) shown on the PTOL-90A cover letter attached to this decision.
Appeal 2010-002952
Application 101423,848
Marcie L. Leist (Appellant) seeks review under 35 U.S.C. 5 134 (2002)
of a final rejection of claims 1, 3-22, and 34-55, the only claims pending in
the application on appeal. We have jurisdiction over the appeal pursuant to
35 U.S.C. 5 6(b) (2002).
The Appellant invented a method and system for automated meeting
scheduling. Specification 1 : 2-4.
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 scheduling system, comprising:
[I] a computer-readable storage medium;
[2] software stored on the computer-readable medium, the
software operable to:
[a] provide an interface to allow a user to input
information regarding a meeting;
[b] provide a first meeting scheduler data field using
the interface to allow the user to provide scheduler information,
2 Our decision will make reference to the Appellant's Appeal Brief ("App.
Br.," filed July 24, 2009) and the Examiner's Answer ("Ans.," mailed
September 28, 2009), and Final Rejection ("Final Rej .," mailed February 26,
2009).
Appeal 2010-002952
Application 10/423,848
the scheduler information identifying a first person scheduling
the meeting;
[c] provide a first meeting requester data field using
the interface to allow the user to provide requester information,
the first meeting requester data field being distinct from the first
meeting scheduler data field, the requester information
identifying a second person requesting the meeting;
[dl receive scheduler and requester information using
the interface; and
[el store the scheduler and requester information and
associate such information with other data concerning the
meeting such that a meeting invitation generated for the
meeting identifies the first person as the meeting requester and
the second person as the meeting scheduler.
The Examiner relies upon the following prior art:
Special Edition Using Microsoft Outlook 2002, Que,
http://proquest.safaribookonline.corn/0789725 142?tocview=true (last
visited on May 17, 2001). ("Que").
Claims 1, 3-21, and 34-55 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. 5 102(b) as
being anticipated by Que.
Claim 22 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. 5 103(a) as unpatentable over
Que and Official Notice.
ISSUES
The issue of whether the Examiner erred in rejecting claims 1, 3-21, and
34-55 under 35 U.S.C. 5 102(b) as being anticipated by Que turns on
Appeal 2010-002952
Application 101423,848
whether Que describes a meeting scheduler data field that is distinct from a
meeting requestor data field.
The issue of whether the Examiner erred in rejecting claim 22 under 35
U.S.C. 5 103(a) as unpatentable over Que and Official Notice turns on
whether the Appellant's arguments in support of claim 1 are found to be
persuasive.
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
01. Que is directed to a discussion on the use of the features of the
software application Microsoft Outlook 2002. Que 1.
02. Que describes a feature of Microsoft Outlook 2002 that allows
a user to schedule meetings with other users. Que 7-8. A form is
presented to a user, where the form includes fields for a user to
input other attendees in the "To" field, a subject field, a location
field, a start time and end time fields, and a notes field. Que
7:Fig. 10.5. The meeting request is received by a user via email
and the received email message includes all of the data fields input
by the sending user and further includes a "From" field identifying
the sender of the email. Que 10:Fig. 10.7.
Appeal 2010-002952
Application 101423,848
03. Que further describes the ability to delegate authority to other
users for email and calendar events. Que 40:Fig. 22.16. When
another user is submitting a message on another user's behalf, a
user adds the name of the user they are submitting the message on
behalf of in the "From" field. Que 41. The received message
contains information in the "From" field that includes the name of
the sender of the message and the name of the person from whom
the message is sent on behalf of. Que 42:Fig. 22.18.
04. Que also describes the manner in which contact details can be
added, including multiple telephone numbers for the contacts.
Que 26-28.
ANALYSIS
Claims 1, 3-21, and 34-55 rejected under 35 U.S. C. § 102(b) as being
anticipated by Que
The Appellant first argues that Que fails to describe a meeting scheduler
data field and a meeting requester data field, as required by claims 1 and 45.
App. Br. 6-9. We disagree with the Appellant. Claim 1 requires a scheduler
data field that allows a user to provide scheduler information using an
interface. Claim 1 also requires a requester data field that allows a user to
provide requestor information using an interface. Claim 1 further requires
that the scheduler data field is distinct from the requestor data field. Claim 1
does not limit the manner in which the meeting scheduler and meeting
Appeal 2010-002952
Application 101423,848
requestor are identified. Claim 1 also does not require that the interface
provide these data fields simultaneously.
Que describes a feature that allows a user to schedule a meeting. FF 02.
A meeting request form includes several data fields for a meeting scheduler
to input meeting information. FF 02. A meeting scheduler further can be
designated with the authority to request a meeting on the behalf of another
user. FF 03. When a scheduler creates a meeting invitation on behalf of
another user or requester, the scheduler inputs the requestor's name into a
"From" field such that the received meeting request identifies a meeting
request is sent by a meeting scheduler on behalf of a meeting requester. FF
02-03. That is, a received request will read "From: Jane Rogers on behalf of
Gordon Padwick," where Jane Rogers is the meeting scheduler and Gordon
Padwick is the meeting requestor. FF 03. As such, Que describes a meeting
scheduler data field that is distinct from the meeting requestor data field.
The Appellant also argues that the "From" data field in Que is only a
single field that does not allow any input. App. Br. 8. The Appellant
appears to be also arguing that there is no data field for inputting the
scheduler information since that information is connected to the account
submitting the message. However, as noted supra, claim 1 does not require
that the requestor and scheduler data fields are presented simultaneously. It
is implicit that the user of an Outlook account inputs identification
information such that all messages sent from that user's account includes
that user's identification information. In other words, "Jane Rogers" is input
into system and all messages sent from that account will be from "Jane
Rogers." Claim 1 does not require that this information is input at the time
of submitting a meeting request. Additionally, Que describes that the
Appeal 2010-002952
Application 101423,848
"From" field is further used to designate whom the request is sent on behalf
or the requestor. FF 02-03. As such, Que describes two distinct fields for
inputting requestor and scheduler data.
The Appellant also argues that a meeting request stating that a first
person has sent the request on behalf of a second person does not identify a
meeting scheduler and a meeting requestor. App. Br. 8-9. However, as
noted supra, claim 1 does not require the manner in which the meeting
scheduler and requestors are identified. As such, the person sending the
request can be identified as the meeting scheduler and the person whom the
request is sent on behalf of can be identified as the meeting requestor. We
find that it is clear that a person sending a meeting request is doing so in
order to schedule a meeting and as such is identified as a meeting scheduler.
We also find that a person with ordinary skill in the art would have
understood that the person whom the message is submitted on behalf of,
such as "Gordon Padwick," is identified as a meeting requestor.
The Appellant further contends that Que fails to describe a second
meeting scheduler data field is provided using the interface to allow the user
to provide a scheduler telephone number, as required by claim 8. App. Br.
10. We disagree with the Appellant. Claim 8 does not require that the
second meeting scheduler data field is provided at the same time as the first
scheduler data field. Que describes an interface for entering telephone
numbers in contact data fields. FF 04. The telephone numbers as associated
with users of the system. Since the scope of claim 8 does not limit the time
or manner in which the second scheduler data field is provided, the second
data field for the scheduler telephone number can be provided when entering
the contact details.
Appeal 2010-002952
Application 101423,848
Claim 22 rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Que
and Oficial Notice.
The Appellant contends that claim 22 is allowable for the same reasons
set forth supra in the discussion of claim 1. We disagree with the Appellant.
The Appellant's arguments in support of claim 1 were not found to be
persuasive supra and are not found to be persuasive here for the same
reasons.
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
The Examiner did not err in rejecting claims 1, 3-21, and 34-55 under 35
U.S.C. 5 102(b) as being anticipated by Que.
The Examiner did not err in rejecting claim 22 under 35 U.S.C. 5 103(a)
as unpatentable over Que and Official Notice.
DECISION
To summarize, our decision is as follows.
The rejection of claims 1, 3-21, and 34-55 under 35 U.S.C. 5 102(b)
as being anticipated by Que is sustained.
The rejection of claim 22 under 35 U.S.C. 5 103(a) as unpatentable
over Que and Official Notice is sustained.
Appeal 2010-002952
Application 101423,848
No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with
this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. 5 1.136(a). See 37 C.F.R.
5 1.136(a)(l)(iv) (2007).
AFFIRMED
mev
Address
HEWLETT-PACKARD COMPANY
Intellectual Property Administration
3404 E. Harmony Road
Mail Stop 35
FORT COLLINS CO 80528