Ex Parte Marston

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Dec 13, 2012

11094851 (P.T.A.B. Dec. 13, 2012)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
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
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE FIRST NAMED INVENTOR ATTORNEY DOCKET NO. CONFIRMATION NO.
11/094,851 03/31/2005 David Marston LOT920050016US1 (092) 8529
46321 7590 12/13/2012
CAREY, RODRIGUEZ, GREENBERG & O''KEEFE, LLP
STEVEN M. GREENBERG
950 PENINSULA CORPORATE CIRCLE
SUITE 2022
BOCA RATON, FL 33487
EXAMINER
MILLER, ALAN S
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
3624
MAIL DATE DELIVERY MODE
12/13/2012 PAPER
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.
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE 1
___________ 2
3
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD 4
___________ 5
6
Ex parte DAVID MARSTON 7
___________ 8
9
Appeal 2011-003000 10
Application 11/094,851 11
Technology Center 3600 12
___________ 13
14
15
Before ANTON W. FETTING, JOSEPH A. FISCHETTI, and 16
BIBHU R. MOHANTY, Administrative Patent Judges. 17
FETTING, Administrative Patent Judge. 18
DECISION ON APPEAL 19
Appeal 2011-003000
Application 11/094,851

2
STATEMENT OF THE CASE1 1

1 Our decision will make reference to the Appellant’s Appeal Brief (“App.
Br.,” filed July 23, 2010) and Reply Brief (“Reply Br.,” filed November 27,
2010), and the Examiner’s Answer (“Ans.,” mailed September 27, 2010).
David Marston (Appellant) seeks review under 35 U.S.C. § 134 of a 2
final rejection of claims 1-7 and 16-23, the only claims pending in the 3
application on appeal. We have jurisdiction over the appeal pursuant to 4
35 U.S.C. § 6(b). 5
The Appellant invented a way of scheduling meetings in a 6
collaborative computing environment (Specification para. [0001]). 7
An understanding of the invention can be derived from a reading of 8
exemplary claim 1, which is reproduced below [bracketed matter and some 9
paragraphing added]. 10
1. A method 11
for scheduling subsidiary meeting locations 12
for a meeting 13
in a collaborative environment, 14
the method comprising the steps of: 15
[1] sending a meeting invitation 16
to a selection of invitees 17
in the collaborative environment 18
for at least one primary location; 19
[2] processing 20
within a meeting host executing in a computer 21
system, 22
both complete acceptances and declinations to said 23
meeting invitation 24
from individual ones of said invitees 25
Appeal 2011-003000
Application 11/094,851

3
for said primary location, 1
and also 2
partial acceptances to said meeting invitation 3
from a set of said invitees in said selection; 4
[3] determining 5
within the meeting host 6
for said partial acceptances 7
an alternative location 8
to said primary location 9
which has not already been designated as an 10
acceptable subsidiary location; 11
and, 12
[4] responsive to a threshold value being exceeded 13
based upon a number of invitees 14
in said set of invitees 15
designating said alternative location, 16
designating said alternative location 17
as an acceptable subsidiary location 18
and 19
processing acceptances 20
for said set of invitees. 21
The Examiner relies upon the following prior art: 22
Zhang US 6,016,478 Jan. 18, 2000
Doss US 2004/0093290 Al May 13, 2004
Claims 1-7 and 16-23 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as 23
unpatentable over Zhang and Doss. 24
Appeal 2011-003000
Application 11/094,851

4
ISSUES 1
The issue of obviousness turns primarily on whether the 2
characterization of meeting locations in the claims as alternative or 3
subsidiary are to be afforded patentable weight, and if so, whether the 4
Examiner’s use of those terms is reasonable. 5
FACTS PERTINENT TO THE ISSUES 6
The following enumerated Findings of Fact (FF) are believed to be 7
supported by a preponderance of the evidence. 8
Facts Related to Claim Construction 9
01. The disclosure contains no lexicographic definition of 10
“subsidiary location.” 11
Facts Related to the Prior Art 12
Zhang 13
02. Zhang is directed to managing and scheduling time-based 14
information for multiple individuals located at different locations. 15
Zhang 1:17-18. 16
Doss 17
03. Doss is directed to providing: improved techniques for 18
performing free-time searches of calendar availability information 19
by considering factors beyond availability of free-time segments 20
on a user's calendar; improved scheduling techniques; and 21
improved techniques for analyzing electronic calendar entries and 22
associated calendar data. Doss paras. [0018]-[0021]. 23
Appeal 2011-003000
Application 11/094,851

5
04. A database records user preferences or user-specific 1
constraints/policies. The user may define additional locations, 2
such as his home or office, and may define preferences and 3
constraints for those locations. For example, Fred may define his 4
office as a meeting location, and may specify constraints such as 5
how many people can be accommodated for meetings in this 6
office, etc. Optionally, technology-related information such as 7
device availability or connectivity information may be specified 8
for each user-added location. Travel time from a user-added 9
location to one or more of the locations defined in the location 10
database may be statically specified, or travel time may be 11
estimated. Doss paras [0058]-[0059. 12
05. At Doss’ Block 920, the office location is determined for all 13
meeting invitees whose in-person participation is required at this 14
meeting. Block 930 then determines a preferred meeting location 15
based on where the offices are and one or more other selection 16
criteria. Examples of criteria that may be used for selecting a 17
preferred location include the following: minimize the number of 18
users who will have to travel; find a central location where travel 19
distance, on average, will be minimized; minimize the travel 20
distance for one or more selected participants; and so forth. Any 21
special meeting facilities that have been requested are also 22
considered. Selecting a facility comprises accessing a list of 23
meeting facilities that (1) are available during the time frame in 24
which the meeting is to be scheduled, (2) meet the selection 25
criteria requirements, and (3) have sufficient capacity for the 26
Appeal 2011-003000
Application 11/094,851

6
number of potential in-person invitees. If multiple locations 1
satisfy these requirements, then the choices are preferably 2
displayed to the person who is scheduling the meeting, so that a 3
single location can be selected. Alternatively, the free-time search 4
may be conducted for each suitable location by iterating through 5
the search process for each candidate location. Doss FIGS. 10-11 6
represent the search process when the person scheduling the 7
meeting has not pre-selected a specific location and has not 8
selected a location from the recommendation process in FIG. 9 9
(and Block 1000 is therefore reached following a negative result at 10
Block 910). Block 1000 begins the process by obtaining the list 11
of meeting invitees whose in-person participation is required. A 12
list of candidate locations is then created in Block 1010. In 13
preferred embodiments, the candidate locations may be selected 14
by compiling a list of (1) the office locations for each invitee 15
whose in-person presence is required; (2) all locations for which 16
calendar entries are already scheduled for those people, for the 17
time frame in which the meeting is to be scheduled; and/or (3) 18
locations central to these in-person participant locations. Thus, 19
consideration is given to where the invitees will be on the day of 20
the meeting, to increase the likelihood of finding a meeting time 21
and location. Alternatively, the candidate locations may be 22
selected in an implementation-specific manner (e.g., using a list of 23
site-specific preferred locations or other criteria). Block 1020 24
then chooses one of the candidate locations which has not yet been 25
processed. Block 1030 performs the context-sensitive free-time 26
Appeal 2011-003000
Application 11/094,851

7
search process for this candidate location, using the logic of FIGS. 1
3-7. The results of the search are then saved (Block 1040), and 2
Block 1050 checks to see if there are any other candidate locations 3
to be evaluated. If there are, then control returns to Block 1020 to 4
select the next candidate. Otherwise, processing continues at 5
Block 1060 where the results from evaluating each candidate 6
location are combined, and processing then continues at Block 7
1100 of FIG. 11. Doss paras. [0137]-[0140]. 8
ANALYSIS 9
We are not persuaded by the Appellant’s argument that 10
[t]he claim term "alternative location" within the context of 11
claims 1, 16 and 17 themselves, is a location that is alternative 12
to a primary location. By comparison, the claim term 13
"subsidiary location" should have been construed as an 14
auxiliary or supplemental location in addition to the primary 15
location according the term "subsidiary" its dictionary meaning 16
of "auxiliary" or "supplemental". 17
18
Appeal Br. 7-8. Neither of these terms are lexicographically defined by 19
Appellant and the Examiner provided reasonable, albeit broad constructions 20
of the terms. The Examiner found that unselected candidate locations were 21
alternatives. Ans. 5. We agree that unselected choices from which a 22
selection is to be made provide alternatives for consideration. The Examiner 23
found that locations that are among those indicated in pre-formed selection 24
criteria are subsidiary to the available selections in that they have additional 25
information that is to be considered. Ans. 6. 26
Beyond this, we find that the claim simply schedules meeting 27
locations which there is no disagreement Doss does. The characterization of 28
Appeal 2011-003000
Application 11/094,851

8
such locations as primary, alternative, or subsidiary has no functional 1
relationships within the claims, and as such their interpretation is susceptible 2
only to the human mind and so cannot distinguish over the art. See In re 3
Ngai, 367 F.3d 1336, 1339 (Fed. Cir. 2004). 4
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW 5
The rejection of claims 1-7 and 16-23 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as 6
unpatentable over Zhang and Doss is proper. 7
DECISION 8
The rejection of claims 1-7 and 16-23 is affirmed. 9
No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with 10
this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a). See 37 C.F.R. 11
§ 1.136(a)(1)(iv) (2011). 12
13
AFFIRMED 14
15
16
17
Klh 18