Ex Parte Motoyama et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Sep 21, 2016

12122497 (P.T.A.B. Sep. 21, 2016)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
12/122,497 05/16/2008 Tetsuro Motoyama
29989 7590 09/23/2016
HICKMAN PALERMO BECKER BINGHAM LLP
1 ALMADEN BOULEVARD
FLOOR 12
SAN JOSE, CA 95113
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
ATTORNEY DOCKET NO. CONFIRMATION NO.
49986-0656 8959
EXAMINER
BOSWELL, BETH V
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
3623
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
09/23/2016 ELECTRONIC
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.
Notice of the Office communication was sent electronically on above-indicated "Notification Date" to the
following e-mail address( es):
usdocket@h35g.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte TETSURO MOTOYAMA and AVERY FONG
Appeal2014-001065 1
Application 12/122,4972
Technology Center 3600
Before NINA L. MEDLOCK, KENNETH G. SCHOPPER, and
TARA L. HUTCHINGS, Administrative Patent Judges.
HUTCHINGS, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Appellants appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Examiner's final
rejection of claims 1-12. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We REVERSE.
1 Our decision references Appellants' Appeal Brief ("App. Br.," filed July 1,
2013) and Reply Brief ("Reply Br.," filed Oct. 15, 2013), and the
Examiner's Answer ("Ans.," mailed Aug. 15, 2013) and Final Office Action
("Final Act.," mailed Feb. 25, 2013).
2 Appellants identify Ricoh Company, Ltd. as the real party in interest.
App. Br. 2.
Appeal2014-001065
Application 12/122,497
CLAIMED INVENTION
Appellants' claimed invention "relates generally to project
management [and,] more specifically[,] to managing project schedule data
using separate current and historical task schedule data and to-do list
representations for project schedule data." Spec. i-f 3.
Claim 1, reproduced below, is illustrative of the subject matter on
appeal:
1. A computer-implemented method for managing
project-schedule data, the computer-implemented method
compnsmg:
receiving, from a user via a member schedule editor,
a request to create a task in a project;
prior to schedule data being specified for the task,
generating task data that identifies the task in
the project, wherein the task data has a value that
indicates whether the task is a project task or a non-
project task, and
storing the task data for the task in a data
repository of a computer system, and the computer
system generating and storing in the data repository
of the computer system in association with the task
data, revision data having a value that indicates that
the task associated with the task data does not
currently have any associated schedule data and is a
to-do list task;
a project member assigned to perform the task using
the member schedule editor to:
specify and change schedule data for the task,
define one or more sub-tasks for the task, and
define one or more non-project tasks; and
the member schedule editor:
displaying one or more tasks that are both assigned at least
to the user and are not yet completed,
2
Appeal2014-001065
Application 12/122,497
usmg the value of the rev1s10n data to
determine whether to display the task as a to-do list
task or a non-to-do list task,
using the value of the task data to determine
whether to display the task as a project task or a non-
project task, and
in response to a project member assigned to perform
the task using the member schedule editor to specify and
change schedule data for the task:
generating and storing, in the data repository
of the computer system, the schedule data for the
task, and
updating the value of the revision data stored in
association with the task data to indicate that the task now
has associated schedule data and is a non-to-do list task.
REJECTIONS
Claims 1, 2, 4---6, 8-10, and 12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a)
as unpatentable over Chaffee (US 2008/0201713 Al, pub. Aug. 21, 2008),
Brintle (US 2007/0282658 Al, pub. Dec. 6, 2007), and York (US
2008/0301296 Al, pub. Dec. 4, 2008).
Claims 3, 7, and 11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
unpatentable over Chaffee, Brintle, York, and Nonaka (US 7,269,798 B2,
iss. Sept. 11, 2007).
ANALYSIS
Independent Claim 1, and Dependent Claims 2 and 4
We are persuaded by Appellants' argument that the Examiner erred in
rejecting claim 1under35 U.S.C. § 103(a) because Chaffee does not teach
or suggest "prior to schedule data being specified for the task ... generating
and storing ... revision data having a value that indicates that the task
associated with the task data does not currently have any associated schedule
3
Appeal2014-001065
Application 12/122,497
data and is a to-do task," as recited in claim 1. App. Br. 5-6. In the Final
Action, the Examiner relies on Chaffee as disclosing the argued limitation.
Final Act. 5 (citing Chaffee i-fi-1 21-28).
Chaffee is directed to a method and apparatus for managing tasks.
Chaffee i12. Figure 1 of Chaffee shows a block diagram of a list 100 of
tasks 101-110 assigned to time segments 191-194. Id. i-f 10, Fig. 1. A user
ranks tasks 101-110 in an order that the tasks are planned to be performed.
Id. i121, Fig. 1. As shown in Figure 1, some tasks have a task cost that
indicates the resources required to complete the task relative to the other
tasks in the list. Id. i122, Fig. 1. For example, a task assigned a task cost of
five is expected to take five times as much resources as a task assigned a
task cost of one. Id. i124. A planned velocity is used to indicate the rate at
which task costs are completed per time segment, i.e., a uniform period of
time, such as a week. Id. i125. Each task is dynamically assigned in the
order of the list to a sequence of time segments, and the velocity of a time
segment is the sum of the task costs of the tasks in that time segment. Id.
i1 26. The tasks are assigned until assigning the next task in list 100 would
make the velocity for that segment exceed the planned velocity. Id. i127.
As shown in Figure 1, tasks 101 and 102 are assigned to time segment 191,
and tasks 105, 106, and 107 are assigned to time segment 193.
In rejecting claim 1 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a), the Examiner finds that
Chaffee describes, at paragraphs 21-28, associating each task with a priority,
resource, and cost prior to assigning the task to a particular time segment.
Final Act. 5. Chaffee describes ranking tasks in order of performance and
assigning each task cost when assigning the tasks to time segments. See
Chaffee i-fi-1 21-28, Fig. 1. But we do not find any description in Chaffee that
4
Appeal2014-001065
Application 12/122,497
discloses or suggests "prior to schedule data being specified for the task ...
generating and storing ... revision data having a value that indicates that the
task associated with the task data does not currently have any associated
schedule data and is a to-do list task," as recited in claim 1.
In response, the Examiner finds that "[t]he teachings of Chaffee
would have suggested to one of ordinary skill in the art to use a revision data
to indicate current scheduling status and whether the task is a to-do list."
Ans. 11. In this regard, the Examiner finds that Figure 1 of Chaffee "shows
a list oftask[s] that [are] currently in an initial state without any current
schedule data[,] i.e.[,] without a specific starting time or end time for the
tasks." Ans. 11. The Examiner also finds that paragraphs 21-38 of Chaffee
teach that each task in the database can be associated with priority data, such
as a Boolean, indicating the task's importance. Id. And the Examiner finds
that paragraphs 64---67 of Chaffee describe status indicators for the tasks,
such as an unstarted state or a started state.
However, Figure 1 of Chaffee shows list 100 of tasks 101-110
assigned to particular time segments 191-194 for completion, i.e., schedule
data. Chaffee, Fig. 1, i-f 28. Each time segment corresponds to a uniform
period of time, such as a week. Id. i-f 25. Moreover, the order of the tasks
and associated time segments indicate the order for performing the tasks.
See id. i-fi-1 21, 28, Fig. 1. Thus, we find a time segment, as described by
Chaffee, constitutes schedule data for the tasks associated with the time
segment. We find nothing in the portions of Chaffee cited by the Examiner
in the Answer that discloses or suggests "revision data having a value that
indicates the task associated with the task data does not have any associated
schedule data," as recited in claim 1.
5
Appeal2014-001065
Application 12/122,497
In the Answer, the Examiner additionally relies on York at
paragraphs 82-86 as "suggest[ing] that a task can be labeled with a different
revision value i.e., pending with schedule- scheduled and non-to-do,
active/start with schedule- scheduled and to do." Ans. 11-12. And the
Examiner determines that the cited prior art "shows that using revision data
value to indicate a task's status is old and well known."
York relates to a system and method for providing automated task
creation and delegation, and an analysis tool for processing task information
and data. York i-f 2. In the method of York, a user elects to change the status
of a task from pending, start, active, work-in-progress, or to complete. Id.
i-fi-183-84. The user elects to view information or generate reports on
tracking and trending of task status and completion. Id. i-f 85. Yet we fail to
see how or why, and the Examiner does not adequately explain how or why,
a user changing a status of a task, whether considered alone or in
combination with Chaffee, discloses or suggests "prior to schedule data
being specified for the task ... generating and storing ... revision data
having a value that indicates that the task associated with the task data does
not currently have any associated schedule data and is a to-do list task," as
recited in claim 1.
In view of the foregoing, we do not sustain the Examiner's rejection
of claim 1 and claims 2 and 4, which depend therefrom, under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a).
Independent Claims 5 and 9, and Dependent Claims 6, 8, 10, and 12
Independent claims 5 and 9 include language substantially similar to
the language of claim 1, and stand rejected based on the same erroneous
findings applied with respect to claim 1. Final Act. 8-9. Therefore, we do
6
Appeal2014-001065
Application 12/122,497
not sustain the Examiner's rejection of independent claims 5 and 9 and
claims 6, 8, 10, and 12, which depend therefrom, under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a)
for the same reasons set forth with respect to claim 1.
Dependent Claims 3, 7, and 11
Claims 3, 7, and 11 each ultimately depends from independent
claims 1, 5, and 9, respectively. The Examiner's rejection of claims 3, 7,
and 11 based on Nonaka, in combination with Chaffee and York, does not
cure the deficiency in the Examiner's rejection of claims 1, 5, and 9.
Therefore, we do not sustain the Examiner's rejection of claims 3, 7, and 11
under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) for the same reasons set forth above with respect to
claims 1, 5, and 9.
DECISION
The Examiner's rejections of claims 1-12 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a)
are reversed.
REVERSED
7