11616548 (B.P.A.I. May. 27, 2010)

Ex Parte Lu et al

Board of Patent Appeals and InterferencesMay 27, 2010

11616548 (B.P.A.I. May. 27, 2010)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE ____________ BEFORE THE BOARD OF PATENT APPEALS AND INTERFERENCES ____________ Ex parte FANG LU and WEICHUAN DONG ____________ Appeal 2009-011950 Application 11/616,548 Technology Center 2800 ____________ Decided: May 28, 2010 ____________ Before JOSEPH F. RUGGIERO, ELENI MANTIS MERCADER, and CARL W. WHITEHEAD, JR., Administrative Patent Judges. WHITEHEAD, JR., Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL Appeal 2009-011950 Application 11/616,548 2 STATEMENT OF THE CASE Appellants seek our review under 35 U.S.C. § 134 of the Examiner’s final decision rejecting claims 1-7 (Appeal Brief 4). We have jurisdiction over the appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). We AFFIRM. BACKGROUND Appellants’ invention is directed to a method for flexible time zone switching in a calendaring and scheduling (C&S) system. (Appeal Brief 3, 9). Claim 1, which further illustrates the invention, follows: 1. In a calendaring and scheduling (C&S) system, a flexible time zone switching method comprising: setting a first time zone for a future time segment in the C&S system; proposing a specified time and date in a second time zone for an event to be calendared in the C&S system; determining whether the specified date falls within the future time segment; converting the specified time in the second time zone to an equivalent time in the first time zone when it is determined that the specified time falls within the future time segment; and, calendaring the event. Appellants appeal the following rejection: Claims 1-7 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 102(a) as being unpatentable over Eisen (US Patent Publication 2006/0136121 A1; June 22, 2006). Answer 4-5. Rather than repeat the arguments of Appellants or the Examiner, we refer to the Appeal Brief (filed December 2, 2008), the Reply Brief (filed Appeal 2009-011950 Application 11/616,548 3 May 18, 2009), and the Answer (mailed March 16, 2009) for their respective details. In this decision, we have considered only those arguments actually made by Appellants. Arguments which Appellants could have made but did not make in the Briefs have not been considered and are deemed to be waived. See 37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(1)(vii) (2008). ISSUE Does Eisen disclose a method step within a calendaring and scheduling (C&S) system that determines whether a specified date falls within a future time segment as recited in claim 1? FACTUAL FINDINGS 1. Figures 1 and 2 of Eisen are reproduced below: Appeal 2009-011950 Application 11/616,548 4 Figures 1 and 2 disclose travel documents providing information for trips 12 with trips 12A-C, E, and F transitioning between multiple time zones. Trip 12D is contained within one time zone (Eisen, ¶ [0026]). 2. Figures 5-7 of Eisen are reproduced below: Figures 5-7 disclose grid-type day views 60 of the electronic calendar 52. The grid discloses wherein the time zone differences are recognized 68, 70; 72, 74 (Eisen, ¶¶ [0052-54]). ANALYSIS Appellants argue that the Examiner has committed reversible error by relying on Eisen because of the following: 1. The Examiner construes “time segment” as merely a time and date; Appeal 2009-011950 Application 11/616,548 5 2. The Examiner compares “setting a first time zone for a future time segment” to the presence of a time and date for a future trip specified by a travel document; 3. The Examiner compares “proposing a specified time and date in a second time zone” to the time and date of the future trip specified by the travel document; and, 4. The Examiner construes “specified time and date in a second time zone” to have the identical meaning of “time segment” in the first time zone (Reply Brief 6). 1. We do not find Appellants’ argument in relation to the Examiner’s interpretation of the terminology “time segment” to be persuasive because Eisen’s disclosure of a time and date is broad enough to satisfy the broad “time segment” claim language. See Answer 6; FF 1. 2. Appellants argue that a plain reading of Eisen’s paragraph [0026] reveals no teaching of “setting a first time zone for a future time segment.” See Appeal Brief 6; Reply Brief 2. Claim 1 recites “setting a first time zone for a future time segment” (emphasis added). As we stated previously, the “time segment” limitation is broad. Accordingly, the Examiner relies upon Eisen’s disclosure of setting a first time zone 16 for a future time segment 24, wherein the future time segment is established upon the commencement of the scheduled trips 12 in the travel document. See Answer 6; FF 1-2. Therefore, we do not find Appellants’ argument to be persuasive. 3. Appellants contend that the Examiner’s comparison of the claim limitation “proposing a specified time and date in a second time zone for an event to be calendared in the C&S system” to specifying either a “start time zone” or an “end time zone” for a trip referenced in Eisen fails to provide a Appeal 2009-011950 Application 11/616,548 6 “teaching of proposing a specified time and date in a second time zone.” Appeal Brief 6-7. This argument is merely a recitation of claim language without accompaniment by an explanation of why the recited limitation is not disclosed or suggested by the references. That is, Appellants’ arguments are merely general statements and do not distinguish over the Examiner’s reliance upon Eisen’s scheduled trips in a travel document. See FF 1. Eisen discloses in his travel document a specified time and date in a second time zone. Id. Further, Appellants contend that the Examiner failed to locate within Eisen the third limitation of claim 1, “determining whether the specified date falls within the future time segment.” Appeal Brief 7. Appellants reason that in order for Eisen to disclose the third limitation, “the specified date must have been proposed in the SECOND time zone which the future time segment is in the FIRST time zone.” Id. Appellants’ arguments are not persuasive because they fail to provide a specific reason or rationale as to why Appellants’ third claim limitation distinguishes over Eisen’s disclosure of scheduled trips in a travel document. See Answer 6-7; FF 1-2. 4. Appellants conclude that the Examiner’s interpretation of claim 1’s limitation “specified time and date in a second time zone” as having the identical meaning of “time segment” in the first time zone is improper. See Reply Brief 6. As we stated previously, “time segment” is considered to be broad and therefore subject to broad interpretation by the Examiner. It is the Examiner’s position that Eisen indicates that “[t]he first time zone is the time zone of the trip destination. The future time segment is the time when the user plans to be in the destination time zone. The second time zone is the time zone of the location of [the] starting point of the trip.” Answer 6. Appeal 2009-011950 Application 11/616,548 7 The Examiner delineates the meanings of the claim limitations and indicates how the limitations read upon Eisen. Therefore, we do not find Appellants’ arguments persuasive. We will sustain the Examiner’s rejection of claim 1 as well as dependent claims 2-7 for the same reasons above because Appellants have indicated that the dependent claims 2-7 stand or fall with claim 1. DECISION We affirm the Examiner’s 35 U.S.C. § 102(a) rejection of claims 1-7 as being unpatentable over Eisen. TIME PERIOD 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)(v) (2009). ORDER AFFIRMED babc CAREY, RODRIGUEZ, GREENBERG & PAUL, LLP STEVEN M. GREENBERG 950 PENINSULA CORPORATE CIRCLE SUITE 2022 BOCA RATON, FL 33487