Ex Parte Ritter

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Oct 31, 2012

11027178 (P.T.A.B. Oct. 31, 2012)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
____________

BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
____________

Ex parte GERD M. RITTER

___________

Appeal 2010-000785
Application 11/027,178
Technology Center 2100
____________

Before JOSEPH F. RUGGIERO, JOHN A. JEFFERY, and ERIC B. CHEN,
Administrative Patent Judges.

CHEN, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL

Appeal 2010-000785
Application 11/027,178

2
This is an appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the final rejection of
claims 1, 2, 5, 9, 10, 12, 14-21, 25, 26, and 28. Claims 3, 4, 6-8, 11, 13, 22-
24, and 27 have been cancelled. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C.
§ 6(b). We affirm.

STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Appellant’s invention relates to administrating an electronic
document, including displaying an electronic document to a user in a
computer system, and receiving an input from the user to specify a future
time when a predefined action is to be automatically taken with regard to the
electronic document (e.g., deleting, archiving, or changing a status or
classification). (Abstract.)
Claim 26 is exemplary, with disputed limitations in italics:
26. A computer program product tangibly embodied in a
computer readable storage medium, the computer program product
including instructions that, when executed, cause a processor to
perform operations comprising:
displaying an electronic document to a user in a computer
system;
receiving at least one input from the user made under guidance
of a graphical user interface (GUI), the GUI including at least one
input control that (i) presents a plurality of future times for the user to
choose between and (ii) presents a plurality of conditions for the user
to choose between, the at least one input specifying: (i) a future time
when a predefined action is automatically taken with regard to the
electronic document, the future time selected by the user from among
the plurality of future times, and (ii) a condition for automatically
taking the predefined action with regard to the electronic document at
the specified future time, the condition selected by the user from
among the plurality of conditions; wherein the specified future time is
Appeal 2010-000785
Application 11/027,178

3
associated with a user-selectable input control for initiating creation
of the electronic document; and wherein the user triggers the creation
of the electronic document by selecting the future time using the user-
selectable input control; and recording the specified future time and
the condition in the computer system for automatically taking the
predefined action with regard to the electronic document at the
specified time if the condition is met, and not automatically taking the
predefined action with regard to the electronic document at the
specified time if the condition is not met;
wherein the computer system includes several alternative input
controls for initiating the creation of the electronic document, each of
the several input controls being associated with a different future
time; and wherein upon user selection of one of the several alternative
input controls, the future time associated with the selected input
control is recorded for automatically taking the predefined action
with regard to the electronic document.

Claims 26 and 28 stand rejected under § 103(a) as being obvious over
MacPhail (U.S. Patent No. 5,107,419), Crohn (U.S. Patent No. 7,114,154
B1), and Glass (U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2004/0261016 A1).
Claims 1, 2, 5, 9, 10, 12, 14-21, and 25 stand rejected under § 103(a)
as being obvious over MacPhail, Crohn, Glass, and Winarski (U.S. Patent
Application Publication No. 2002/0133557 A1).
The rejection of claim 10 under 35 U.S.C § 112, second paragraph,
has been withdrawn by the Examiner. (Ans. 3.)

ANALYSIS
§ 103 Rejection – MacPhail, Crohn, and Glass
We are unpersuaded by Appellant’s arguments (Reply Br. 4) that the
combination of MacPhail, Crohn, and Glass would not have rendered
Appeal 2010-000785
Application 11/027,178

4
obvious independent claim 26, which includes the limitations “the specified
future time is associated with a user-selectable input control for initiating
creation of the electronic document” and “the user triggers the creation of
the electronic document by selecting the future time using the user-
selectable input control.”
The Examiner found that the document descriptor menu of Figure 5,
in which the end user enters a name for the Document Label and a name for
the Ownership Label, corresponds to the limitations “the specified future
time is associated with a user-selectable input control for initiating creation
of the electronic document” and “the user triggers the creation of the
electronic document by selecting the future time using the user-selectable
input control.” (Ans. 7-8, 46-49; MacPhail, col. 6, ll. 63-65; col. 7, ll. 1-7,
11-13.) We agree with the Examiner.
MacPhail relates to “a method of classifying documents which insures
that descriptors [are] established for managing the retention and deletion of
stored documents.” (Col. 1, ll. 10-13.) Figure 4a of MacPhail illustrates a
main action menu in which an end user can initiate a “Create a Document”
action (col. 6, ll. 57-61) such that “[t]he system responds with a series of
prompts which allows the user to create a document” (col. 6, ll. 63-65).
MacPhail explains that to store the document, “descriptors must be assigned
which assist in controlling the retention of the document up to a specified
time and automatic deletion of the document after that time” (e.g., “SET
DESCRIPTORS” from Figure 4b). (Col. 7, ll. 1-7.) The end user of
MacPhail enters a name for the Document Label (e.g., “MEMO” from
Figure 5) and a name of the Ownership Label (e.g., “PERSONAL MEMO”
from Figure 5). (Col. 7, ll. 11-13; see also col. 3, ll. 18-21.) A System
Appeal 2010-000785
Application 11/027,178

5
Administrator (SA) establishes a range of expiration dates for each of the
document labels. (Col. 3, ll. 23-25.) Therefore, MacPhail teaches the
limitations “the specified future time is associated with a user-selectable
input control for initiating creation of the electronic document” and “the user
triggers the creation of the electronic document by selecting the future time
using the user-selectable input control.”
Appellant argues that “[r]egarding the claim phrase ‘the specified
future time is associated with a user-selectable input control for initiating
creation of the electronic document,’ MacPhail’s ‘main action menu’ does
not initiate creation of ‘the document,’ it merely initiates ‘a series of prompts
that allow the user to create the document.’” (Reply Br. 4.) Accordingly,
Appellant argues, “no specific future time is associated with MacPhail’s
main action menu because the user enters an arbitrary future time in a
subsequent screen.” (Id.) However, the claim language “user-selectable
input control for initiating creation of the electronic document” is broad
enough to encompass the main action menu illustrated in Figure 4a with a
“Create a Document” action.
Appellant also argues that:
Regarding the claim phrase “the user triggers the creation
of the electronic document by selecting the future time using
the user-selectable input control,” MacPhail’s user does not
trigger the creation of the document “by selecting the future
time,” because the user can continue to enter other values in
FIG. 5 after entering the future date.
(Reply Br. 4.) Contrary to Appellant’s arguments, MacPhail explains the
System Administrator establishes a range of expiration dates for each of the
document labels. (Col. 3, ll. 23-25.)
Appeal 2010-000785
Application 11/027,178

6
Thus, we agree with the Examiner that the combination of MacPhail,
Crohn, and Glass would have rendered obvious independent claim 26, which
includes the limitations “the specified future time is associated with a user-
selectable input control for initiating creation of the electronic document”
and “the user triggers the creation of the electronic document by selecting
the future time using the user-selectable input control.”
We are also unpersuaded by Appellant’s arguments (App. Br. 6-7; see
also Reply Br. 4-5) that the combination of MacPhail, Crohn, and Glass
would not have rendered obvious independent claim 26, which includes the
limitations “several alternative input controls for initiating the creation of the
electronic document” and “each of the several input controls being
associated with a different future time.”
The Examiner found that the document descriptor menu of Figure 5,
in which the end user entering a name for the Document Label (DL) and a
name for the Ownership Label (OL) such that the expiration date is
controlled by the System Administrator (SA), corresponds to the limitations
“several alternative input controls for initiating the creation of the electronic
document” and “each of the several input controls being associated with a
different future time.” (Ans. 9-12, 50-54; MacPhail, col. 3, ll. 11-25; col. 8,
ll. 55-59; col. 9, ll. 28-32). We agree with the Examiner.
As discussed previously, the System Administrator (SA) establishes a
range of expiration dates for each of the document labels (e.g., Document
Label or Ownership Label). (Col. 3, ll. 11-25.) Figure 10 of MacPhail
illustrates an ownership expiration date table for a user profile (col. 4, ll. 54-
55), including a MINIMUM column, a MAXIMUM column, a
PERMISSIBLE VALUES column, and a DEFAULT column (col. 8, ll. 55-
Appeal 2010-000785
Application 11/027,178

7
59). Figure 11 of MacPhail illustrates a document expiration date table for a
user profile (col. 4, ll. 56-57) that includes the same columns (col. 9, ll. 28-
32). Such tables function to verify that either the ownership expiration date
or the document expiration date are “entered directly by the end user is a
permissible date value, and to provide a default date in the event that data is
not entered directly.” (Col. 8, ll. 61-63; col. 9, ll. 34-36.) Accordingly,
because the ownership expiration date and the document expiration date can
differ, MacPhail teaches the limitations “several alternative input controls
for initiating the creation of the electronic document” and “each of the
several input controls being associated with a different future time.”
Appellant argues that:
Regarding the claim phrase “several alternative input
controls for initiating the creation of the electronic document,”
MacPhail’s user does not initiate the creation of the document
using the document expiration date and ownership expiration
date in FIG. 5, because the user can continue to enter other
values in FIG. 5 after entering the date(s).
(Reply Br. 4.) Similarly, Appellant argues that:
Regarding the claim phrase “each of the several input
controls being associated with a different future time,” the
document expiration date and ownership expiration date fields
in MacPhail’s FIG. 5 do not have future times associated with
them; the user enters an arbitrary date in either control.
(Reply Br. 5.) Contrary to Appellant’s arguments and as discussed
previously, MacPhail explains that the expiration date for the Document
Label and the Ownership Label are required to be within permissible values
or a default value can be used. (Col. 8, ll. 61-63; col. 9, ll. 34-36.)
Thus, we agree with the Examiner that the combination of MacPhail,
Crohn, and Glass would have rendered obvious independent claim 26, which
Appeal 2010-000785
Application 11/027,178

8
includes the limitations “several alternative input controls for initiating the
creation of the electronic document” and “each of the several input controls
being associated with a different future time.”
We are further unpersuaded by Appellant’s arguments (App. Br. 7;
see also Reply Br. 5) that the combination of MacPhail, Crohn, and Glass
would not have rendered obvious independent claim 26, which includes the
limitations “upon user selection of one of the several alternative input
controls, the future time associated with the selected input control is
recorded for automatically taking the predefined action with regard to the
electronic document.”
The Examiner found that the output of the routine that interfaces with
the End User (EU) to provide a file document with a specified classification
corresponds to the claimed “upon user selection of one of the several
alternative input controls, the future time associated with the selected input
control is recorded for automatically taking the predefined action with
regard to the electronic document.” (Ans. 12-13, 55-56; MacPhail, col. 12,
ll. 19-20.) We agree with the Examiner.
MacPhail describes a routine that interfaces an end user to provide a
file document with a specified classification (col. 10, ll. 61-54), including
inputs such as Document Label, Ownership Label and expiration period
values (col. 11, ll. 1-5). Such a routine outputs “[a] filed document with
appropriately set labels and expiration dates.” (Col. 12, ll. 19-20.) Thus,
MacPhail teaches the limitation “upon user selection of one of the several
alternative input controls, the future time associated with the selected input
control is recorded for automatically taking the predefined action with
regard to the electronic document.”
Appeal 2010-000785
Application 11/027,178

9
Appellant argues that:
Regarding the claim phrase “upon user selection of one
of the several alternative input controls, the future time
associated with the selected input control is recorded for
automatically taking the predefined action with regard to the
electronic document,” MacPhail’s user can enter values in both
of the document expiration date and ownership expiration date
fields, and accordingly they are not “alternative” input controls.
(Reply Br. 5.) Again, contrary to Appellant’s arguments and as discussed
previously, MacPhail explains that the expiration date for the Document
Label and the Ownership Label are required to be within permissible values
or a default value can be used. (Col. 8, ll. 61-63; col. 9, ll. 34-36.)
Thus, we agree with the Examiner that the combination of MacPhail,
Crohn, and Glass would have rendered obvious independent claim 26, which
includes the limitation “upon user selection of one of the several alternative
input controls, the future time associated with the selected input control is
recorded for automatically taking the predefined action with regard to the
electronic document.”
Accordingly, we sustain the rejection of independent claim 26 under
35 U.S.C. § 103(a). Claim 28 depends from claim 26, and Appellant has not
presented any substantive arguments with respect to this claim. Therefore,
we sustain the rejection of claim 28 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a), for the same
reasons discussed with respect to independent claim 26.

§ 103 Rejection – MacPhail, Crohn, Glass, and Winarski
We are unpersuaded by Appellant’s arguments (App. Br. 7; see also
Reply Br. 5) that the combination of MacPhail, Crohn, Glass, and Winarski
would not have rendered obvious independent claim 1, which includes the
Appeal 2010-000785
Application 11/027,178

10
limitation “the user makes the input to select at least the future time by
placing the electronic document in the folder, and wherein placing the
electronic document in the folder selects the future time for automatically
taking the predefined action with regard to the electronic document.”
The Examiner acknowledged that the combination of MacPhail,
Crohn, and Glass does not disclose the limitation “the user makes the input
to select at least the future time by placing the electronic document in the
folder, and wherein placing the electronic document in the folder selects the
future time for automatically taking the predefined action with regard to the
electronic document” (Ans. 30) and therefore, relied upon Winarski for
teaching a method of sorting e-mail (Ans. 31; Winarski, ¶¶ [0048], [0052]).
We agree with the Examiner.
Winarski relates to sorting email “based on whether the sender of this
e-mail is known and whether the e-mail has attachments.” (Abstract.)
Figure 4 of Winarski illustrates a front-of-screen 400 with four folders 410,
420, 430, and 440, including the folder 440 entitled “Unknown Senders,
With Attachments” 441. (¶ [0033].) Figure 10 of Winarski illustrates a
front-of-screen 1000 for issuing management instructions to each of the
folders 410, 420, 430, and 440 (¶ [0048]), including a frame 1030 entitled
“Unknown Senders, No Attachments” 1031 (¶ [0050]). Winarski explains
that “folder 440 . . . places the receiver in the greatest danger from computer
viruses, so the user may wish to block and automatically delete entries to
folder 440.” (¶ [0052]). Alternatively, “e-mails with attachments may be
blocked but held rather than deleted” such that the front-of-screen 1000
permits the user to change such preferences. (Id.) Therefore, Winarski
teaches the limitation “the user makes the input to select at least the future
Appeal 2010-000785
Application 11/027,178

11
time by placing the electronic document in the folder, and wherein placing
the electronic document in the folder selects the future time for
automatically taking the predefined action with regard to the electronic
document.”
Appellant argues that “the blocked email is either held, in which case
it is not sorted into the folder, or deleted, in which case it also is not sorted
into the holder” and “there is no disclosure in Winarski of a user placing an
email in any of the folders.” (App. Br. 7.) Contrary to Appellant’s
arguments, Winarski explains that an email characterized as “Unknown
Senders, With Attachments” is placed in the folder 440, such that the email
is either deleted or held.
Appellant also argues that “it is clear that the Examiner’s reliance on
Winarski’s automated blocking of email for the above claim phrase is
mistaken” because “the system automatically places emails in folders based
on whether the sender is known and whether they have attachments.”
(Reply Br. 5.) However, the claim limitation “the user makes the input to
select at least the future time by placing the electronic document in the
folder” is broad enough to encompass the frame 1040 of Winarski, in which
the user decides to block e-mail to folder 440 and either automatically
deletes or holds the e-mail.
Thus, we agree with the Examiner that the combination of MacPhail,
Crohn, Glass, and Winarski would have rendered obvious independent
claim 1, which includes the limitation “the user makes the input to select at
least the future time by placing the electronic document in the folder, and
wherein placing the electronic document in the folder selects the future time
Appeal 2010-000785
Application 11/027,178

12
for automatically taking the predefined action with regard to the electronic
document.”
Accordingly, we sustain the rejection of independent claim 1 under 35
U.S.C. § 103(a). Claims 2, 5, 9, 10, 12, and 14-20 depend from claim 1, and
Appellant has not presented any substantive arguments with respect to these
claims. Therefore, we sustain the rejection of claims 2, 5, 9, 10, 12, and 14-
20 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a), for the same reasons discussed with respect to
independent claim 1.
Independent claim 21 recites limitations similar to those discussed
with respect to independent claim 1, and Appellant has not presented any
substantive arguments with respect to this claim. We sustain the rejection of
claim 21, as well as claim 25, which depends from claim 21, for the same
reasons discussed with respect to claim 1.

DECISION
The Examiner’s decision to reject claims 1, 2, 5, 9, 10, 12, 14-21, 25,
26, and 28 is affirmed.
No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with
this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a)(1)(iv).

AFFIRMED

ELD