Ex Parte Leist

Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences

Feb 28, 2011

10423465 (B.P.A.I. Feb. 28, 2011)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
____________

BEFORE THE BOARD OF PATENT APPEALS
AND INTERFERENCES
____________

Ex parte MARCIE L. LEIST
____________

Appeal 2010-002324
Application 10/423,465
Technology Center 3600
____________

Before: MURRIEL E. CRAWFORD, JOSEPH A. FISCHETTI, and BIBHU
R. MOHANTY, Administrative Patent Judges.

CRAWFORD, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL1

1 The two-month time period for filing an appeal or commencing a civil
action, as recited in 37 C.F.R. § 1.304, or for filing a request for rehearing,
as recited in 37 C.F.R. § 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 2010-002324
Application 10/423,465

2
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
This is an appeal from the final rejection of claims 1, 3, 4, 7-10, and
13-20. We have jurisdiction to review the case under 35 U.S.C. §§ 134 and
6 (2002).
The claimed invention is generally directed to systems and methods
for automating meeting scheduling (Spec. 1:2-4). Claim 1, reproduced
below, is further illustrative of the claimed subject matter.
1. A scheduling system, comprising:
a computer-readable storage medium;
software stored on the computer-readable medium, the
software operable to:
provide an interface to allow a user to input
information regarding a meeting;
provide an alternative attendee data field using the
interface to allow a user to provide alternative attendee
information, the alternative attendee information indicating
whether an invitee to a meeting may send an alternate person to
the meeting in place of the invitee;
provide a privacy setting for the alternative attendee
data field using the interface, the privacy setting allowing the
user to prevent other invitees to the meeting from knowing
whether a particular invitee to the meeting may send an
alternate person to the meeting in place of the particular invitee;
receive alternative attendee information using the
interface; and
store the alternative attendee information and
associate such information with other data concerning the
meeting.

Claims 1, 3, 4, 7-10, and 13-20 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. §
103(a) as unpatentable over Roseman (US Pat. 6,608,636 B1, iss. Aug. 19,
2003) in view of Cree (US Pat. 4,807,155, iss. Feb. 21, 1989).
We AFFIRM.
Appeal 2010-002324
Application 10/423,465

3
ISSUE
Did the Examiner err in asserting that a combination of Roseman and
Cree renders obvious privacy settings for an alternative attendee field, as
recited in independent claims 1, 9, and 15?

FINDINGS OF FACT
We adopt the Examiner’s findings of fact, as set forth on pages 3-4
and 9-10 of the Examiner’s Answer.

ANALYSIS
We are not persuaded that the Examiner erred in asserting that a
combination of Roseman and Cree renders obvious privacy settings for an
alternative attendee field, as recited in independent claims 1, 9, and 15 (App.
Br. 20-23; Reply Br. 2-3). Appellant asserts that Cree does not disclose “an
alternative attendee data field, let alone a privacy setting for the alternative
attendee data field” (App. Br. 20-21). However, column 4, lines 46-47 of
Cree discloses alternate invitees. Moreover, Roseman is also cited for
disclosing the alternative attendee data field, and columns 17-18 of Cree are
generally cited for disclosing privacy settings, which is then combined with
the alternative attendee data field of Roseman and Cree to arrive at the
recited privacy settings for the alternative attendee data field (Exam’r’s Ans.
3-4, 9-10). See In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 426 (CCPA 1981) (“one cannot
show non-obviousness by attacking references individually where, as here,
the rejections are based on combinations of references”).
Appellant asserts that the privacy setting in Cree is a general privacy
setting, and that it “does not appear to have any relationship to any
Appeal 2010-002324
Application 10/423,465

4
alternative attendee data fields allegedly disclosed in Roseman or Cree”
(App. Br. 21). However, independent claim 1 recites
provide a privacy setting for the alternative attendee data
field using the interface, the privacy setting allowing the user to
prevent other invitees to the meeting from knowing whether a
particular invitee to the meeting may send an alternate person to
the meeting in place of the particular invitee;
Col. 17, lines 10-12 and col. 18, ll. 16-17 of Cree disclose that all
information, except date and time, are blocked from being viewed by
attendees other than the meeting administrator. Thus, the alternative
attendee data field would also be blocked. While Appellant may have
intended for the privacy setting to be individually applicable to the
alternative attendee data field, such an aspect is not set forth in the claims.
See CollegeNet, Inc. v. ApplyYourself, Inc., 418 F.3d 1225, 1231 (Fed. Cir.
2005).
Appellant asserts that the privacy settings in Cree “would prevent
even the invitee who may send an alternate person to the meeting from
knowing whether he is permitted to send an alternate person” (App. Br. 21-
22). However, the privacy settings in Cree appear to only apply to the
meeting calendar accessible to all attendees. The Examiner has not set forth
a combination of Roseman and Cree that restricts the amount or type of
information, including alternative attendee information, exchanged in
messages between the meeting administrator who sent the invitation and the
attendee who received the invitation. Accordingly, the invitation could
include the alternative attendee data field, and the attendee could respond by
Appeal 2010-002324
Application 10/423,465

5
entering a name in the alternative attendee data field. This alternative
attendee information just would not appear on the meeting calendar
accessible to all attendees.
Appellant asserts that the Examiner has not provided a proper
rationale for combining Roseman and Cree (App. Br. 22-23). However,
page 10 of the Examiner’s Answer recites that “applying privacy settings to
Roseman would have been recognized by those of ordinary skill in the art as
resulting in an improved system that would provide privacy for a calendar
owner's detailed calendar data thereby restricting another user from viewing
certain data.” Appellant has not identified the errors with this rationale in
either the Appeal Brief or Reply Brief. See Keller, 642 F.2d at 425 (“[o]nce
a prima facie case of obviousness [is] established . . . , the burden shift[s] to
appellant to rebut it”).
Appellant asserts that “Cree provides absolutely no hint that the
SECURITY parameter described in column 18 of Cree can be applied to the
ROLE parameter described in column 24 of Cree” (Reply Br. 2-3).
However, the Examiner has provided a line of reasoning, as set forth above
and on page 10 of the Examiner’s Answer, for combining the alternative
attendee aspects of Roseman and Cree with the privacy settings of Cree
(Exam’r’s Ans. 3-4, 9-10). See In re Oetiker, 977 F.2d 1443, 1447 (Fed.
Cir. 1992) (to support the conclusion that the claimed combination is
directed to obvious subject matter, either the references must expressly or
impliedly suggest the claimed combination or the examiner must present a
convincing line of reasoning as to why the artisan would have found the
Appeal 2010-002324
Application 10/423,465

6
claimed invention to have been obvious in light of the teachings of the
references). Accordingly, it does not matter that Cree itself does not provide
an explicit rationale for making the combination.
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) (2007).

AFFIRMED

hh

HEWLETT-PACKARD COMPANY
Intellectual Property Administration
3404 E. Harmony Road
Mail Stop 35
FORT COLLINS, CO 80528