Ex Parte Ravikumar et alDownload PDFPatent Trial and Appeal BoardDec 22, 201411462049 (P.T.A.B. Dec. 22, 2014) Copy Citation UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE _____________ BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD _____________ Ex parte FREDERICK RAJENDRAN RAVIKUMAR and SUBRAMANIAM TIRUMALAISWAMY _____________ Appeal 2013-003636 Application 11/462,049 Technology Center 3600 ______________ Before MURRIEL E. CRAWFORD, ANTON W. FETTING, and BIBHU R. MOHANTY, Administrative Patent Judges. CRAWFORD, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL STATEMENT OF THE CASE This is a decision on appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) of the Examiner’s final rejection of claims 1–5 and 7–24 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Leban (US 2006/0106872 A1; iss. May 18, 2006) in view of Boss (US 2007/0005408 A1; pub. Jan. 4, 2007). We have reviewed the Examiner’s rejection in light of Appellants’ arguments that the Examiner has erred. We concur with Appellants’ contention that the Examiner erred in rejecting claim 1 because: Leban does not disclose that the at least one discussion item is selected based on objectives of the meeting. Instead, that paragraph is silent as to how the agenda item, which the Appeal 2013-003636 Application 11/462,049 2 Examiner has construed as being equivalent to the claimed discussion item, is selected, but instead, merely indicates that the objectives of the discussion may be included in the description of a listed agenda item. As such, the Examiner has failed to establish that Leban discloses that the at least one discussion item is selected based on objectives of the meeting as recited in independent claim 1. App. Br. 13. Accordingly, we will not sustain the Examiner’s rejection of independent claim 1 and claims 2–5 and 7–13 dependent thereon. We will also not sustain this rejection as it is directed to claim 14 and claims 15–23 dependent thereon because claim 14 requires a server adapted to allow the user to select at least one discussion item based on objectives of the meeting. In responding to the rejection of claim 24, Appellants rely on arguments made in response to the rejection of claim 1. We are not persuaded of error on the part of the Examiner by Appellants’ argument that Leban does not disclose a discussion item selected based on objectives of the meeting because this subject matter is not recited in claim 24. We are not persuaded of error on the part of the Examiner by Appellants’ argument that LeBron discloses adding agenda items rather than discussion items. We agree with the Examiner’s response to this argument found on pages 23–25 of the Answer. We add for emphasis only that we agree with the Examiner that calling an item added to the agenda a discussion item rather than an agenda item is not a patentable distinction. Appeal 2013-003636 Application 11/462,049 3 DECISION We reverse the Examiner’s rejection of claims 1–5 and 7–23. We affirm the Examiner’s rejection of claim 24. 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). AFFIRMED-IN-PART hh Copy with citationCopy as parenthetical citation