Ex Parte Schulz et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Apr 24, 2013

11019480 (P.T.A.B. Apr. 24, 2013)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
____________________

BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
____________________

Ex parte KARSTEN A. SCHULZ and WASIM SADIQ
____________________

Appeal 2010-011846
Application 11/019,480
Technology Center 2100
____________________

Before: KALYAN K. DESHPANDE, JASON V. MORGAN, and
MICHAEL J. STRAUSS, Administrative Patent Judges.

STRAUSS, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL

Appeal 2010-011846
Application 11/019,480

2
STATEMENT OF CASE
Appellants appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from a final rejection of
claims 1, 3-5, 7-16, 18-20, and 22-30. Claims 2, 6, 17, and 21 have been
canceled. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We affirm-in-part.

The claims are directed to a cross-context task management method
and system. Claim 1, reproduced below, is illustrative of the claimed subject
matter below [bracketed matter added]:
1. A computer-implemented method of managing a plurality of
tasks, the method comprising:
[1] providing a graphical user interface for a user to:
identify a first task context and associate a
plurality of first tasks with the first task context, and identify a
second task context and associate a plurality of second tasks
with the second task context;
[2] assigning attributes to the plurality of first tasks and
the plurality of second tasks;
[3] associating at least one of the plurality of first tasks
with at least one of the plurality of second tasks based on the
attributes;
[4] monitoring a user input to perform an operation on
one of the plurality of first tasks in the first task context; and
[5] in response to the user input, performing the
operation on the at least one of the plurality of second tasks.

REFERENCES
The prior art relied upon by the Examiner in rejecting the claims on
appeal is:
Davis
Cozzolino
US 2004/0230466 A1
US 2005/0159968 A1
Nov. 18, 2004
Jul. 21, 2005
Appeal 2010-011846
Application 11/019,480

3

REJECTIONS
The Examiner made the following rejections:
Claims 1, 3-5, 7-10, 13, 15, 16, 18-20, 22-25, 28, and 30 stand
rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 102(e) as being anticipated by Davis.1 Ans. 4.
Claims 11, 12, 14, 26, 27, and 29 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a) as being unpatentable over Davis and Cozzolino. Ans. 9.

We have reviewed the Examiner’s rejections in light of the
Appellants’ contentions that the Examiner has erred.
We agree with Appellants’ conclusions as to claims 14 and 29.
However, we disagree with the Appellants’ conclusions in connection with
claims 1, 3-5, 7-13, 15, 16, 18-20, 22-28, and 30 and, in connection
therewith, adopt as our own (1) the findings and reasons set forth by the
Examiner in the action from which this appeal is taken and (2) the reasons
set forth by the Examiner in the Examiner’s Answer in response to the
Appellants’ Appeal Brief and we concur with the conclusion reached by the
Examiner. We highlight the following arguments for emphasis.

REJECTIONS UNDER 35 U.S.C. § 102(e)
Claim 1
Appellants argue that “Davis fails to teach . . . a user interface, as the
Davis interface illustrated in Fig. 1 merely presents a list of choices 104 to a
user.” App. Br. 24 (emphasis omitted). Appellants further argue that “[t]he

1 The Examiner mistakenly includes cancelled claim 17 in the statement of
the rejection.
Appeal 2010-011846
Application 11/019,480

4
user does not associate a plurality of tasks with the service. In fact, the
system automatically solicits data from the user and then the system, not the
user, generates a set of Required Fulfillment Tasks 114.” App. Br. 25
(footnote omitted). Appellants conclude “Davis fails to teach ‘providing a
graphical user interface for a user to: identify a first task context and
associate a plurality of first tasks with the first task context, and identify a
second task context and associate a plurality of second tasks with the
second task context.’” App. Br. 25. The Examiner responds that Figures 13
and 14 of Davis disclose a graphical user interface for assigning attributes to
tasks and identifying each. Ans. 11 (citing Davis [0056-0057], [0059], and
[0062] and Figs. 13-14). We agree with the Examiner.
Davis’s Figures 13 and 14 illustrate a graphical user interface.
Addressing associating (i) first/second tasks with (ii) first/second task
context, the Examiner explains that Davis discloses a requestor is presented
with a list of choices generated from a Request object which results in
soliciting required information from a user. Ans. 11. That is, information
solicited from a user and associated with respective tasks describes
identifying first and second task contexts and associating those tasks
contexts with respective first and second tasks. Therefore, we agree with the
Examiner that Davis discloses the disputed claim limitation of “providing a
graphical user interface for a user to[] identify a first task context and
associate a plurality of first tasks with the first task context, and identify a
second task context and associate a plurality of second tasks with the second
task context.”
Appellants next argue that “Davis fails to teach ‘assigning attributes to
the plurality of first tasks and the plurality of second tasks’ as recited in
Appeal 2010-011846
Application 11/019,480

5
Appellants’ claim 1.” App. Br. 25 (emphasis omitted). In particular
Appellants argue that Davis’s Task ID does not disclose attributes of tasks
because “each Task ID corresponds to a unique task, and is used to identify a
task as part of a project. As each given task has its own unique Task ID, it is
impossible for any other task to share that unique Task ID. Therefore, it is
not possible for the tasks of Davis to be associated based on their attributes,
as each task has a unique descriptor or Task ID.” App. Br. 25 (footnote
omitted). However, as pointed out by the Examiner, Davis discloses that
relationships are defined for linking a project with its associated tasks (Ans.
12 (citing Davis [0072])) and that a “Core-Ticket Table” relates a project
with its corresponding tasks “by creating an entry for each Task record along
with its Project’s unique identifier” (id.). We agree with this finding.
Furthermore, while Appellants argue that, because Davis’s tasks each have
its own unique descriptor or TaskID they cannot be associated based on their
attributes, the claims do not require that the first and second tasks have non-
unique attributes. As explained by the Examiner, Davis’s Core-Ticket Table
provides for associating first and second tasks of a common project. Ans. 12.
Therefore, we agree with the Examiner that Davis discloses assigning
attributes to the plurality of first tasks and the plurality of second tasks.
Appellants next argue that “Davis does not teach multiple pluralities
of tasks and therefore does not teach association of two pluralities of tasks.”
App. Br. 25. We note that claim 1 only requires “associating at least one of
the plurality of first tasks with at least one of the plurality of second tasks
based on the attributes.” There is no requirement for associating two
pluralities of tasks. Therefore Appellants’ argument is not commensurate in
scope with the claim. Furthermore, Davis discloses an Upgrade Network
Appeal 2010-011846
Application 11/019,480

6
project, ProjectID PR0016, in Fig. 5 having associated therewith Configure
system task TK0001, Update Weblogic task TK0010 and Upgrade system
task TK0020. Davis further discloses Update Weblogic project PR0022,
describing that there is a “relationship between a Project and its associated
Tasks” (Davis [0072]) thereby further disclosing that the Update Weblogic
task TK0010 similarly has associated therewith a plurality of tasks.
Therefore, contrary to Appellants’ argument, Davis discloses a plurality of
first tasks and a plurality of second tasks.
Appellants additionally argue that Davis fails to teach performing “an
operation on one of the plurality of first [second] tasks in the first [second]
task context.” App. Br. 26 (emphasis omitted). The Examiner responds that
Davis discloses a new Task is generated when a problem is reported by a
user email message thereby disclosing performing an operation on one of the
plurality of first tasks in the first task context. Ans. 12 (citing Davis [0069-
0070]). Giving the limitation of “performing an operation” its broadest
reasonable interpretation consistent with the specification, we find that
generating a task discloses performing an operation on a task and that,
therefore, Davis discloses the disputed step of performing an operation on
one of the plurality of first [second] tasks in the first [second] task context.
For the reasons discussed supra, we find that Appellants have failed to
provide sufficient evidence or argument to persuade us that that Davis fails
to disclose the disputed claim limitations. Therefore, we sustain the
rejection of claim 1 and for the same reason claims 15, 16, and 30 rejected
under 35 U.S.C. § 102(e) as being anticipated by Davis together with the
rejections of claims 18-20, 22-25, and 28 not separately argued.

Appeal 2010-011846
Application 11/019,480

7
Claims 3-5 and 7-10
Appellants argue that “Davis does not teach multiple pluralities of
tasks.” App. Br. 26. We disagree for the reasons detailed supra.
Accordingly, we sustain the rejection of claims 3-5 and 7-10 under 35
U.S.C. § 102(e) as being anticipated by Davis.

Claim 13
Appellants argue that while Davis’s ticket-core object includes a
priority attribute, “[t]his does not imply a priority of an associated task” and
“[t]herefore, Davis does not teach a priority associated with each task.” App.
Br. 27. We disagree. Davis’s “Core Ticket” is disclosed to include, not only
a “Priority,” but a “Task ID.” Davis [0071]. Therefore, we find that Davis
discloses the disputed limitation and we sustain the rejection of claim 13.

REJECTIONS UNDER 35 U.S.C. § 103(a)

Claims 11, 12, 26, and 27
Appellants argue that “Cozzolino teaches presentation of interactions
between Originator of a task and a Recipient” but “fails to teach or suggest
all the elements and limitations of Appellants’ claims.” App. Br. 28-29
(footnote omitted). The Examiner responds that in Figures 1-10 of Cozzolino
“associations between different tasks are shown in the workflow
representation by lines connecting associated first and second tasks.” Ans.
13 (emphasis omitted).
We agree with the Examiner. For example, Fig. 1 of Cozzolino
depicts a Task State Machine Diagram including various tasks, the
Appeal 2010-011846
Application 11/019,480

8
associations between the tasks represented by lines. Thus, we agree with the
Examiner that the combination of Davis and Cozzolino teaches or suggests
the disputed limitations of claims 11 and 26. Addressing claim 12 the
Examiner finds that Cozzolino discloses partitioning work into one or more
subtasks and breaking tasks into smaller tasks. Ans. 10. Therefore,
Cozzolino’s disclosure of subtasks in combination with Davis’s disclosure of
selectively displaying a workflow representation associated with at least one
selected task selected from the plurality of first and second tasks (Ans. 7
with reference to claim 10 from which claim 12 depends) teaches or
suggests the disputed limitations of claim 12 and 27.
Furthermore, claims 11, 12, 26, and 27 each recites showing some
relationship, i.e., an association between tasks shown by lines connecting the
tasks (claims 11 and 26) and an association between subtasks (claims 12 and
27). However, the graphical depiction of lines connecting tasks and subtasks
does not affect any steps or structural limitations recited in the claimed
method or system. As such, the graphical element of a line is nothing more
than a non-functional description of the relationships that do not distinguish
the claims from the prior art in terms of patentability. See In re Ngai, 367
F.3d 1336, 1339 (Fed. Cir. 2004). Cf. In re Gulack, 703 F.2d 1381, 1385
(Fed. Cir. 1983).
Therefore, for the reasons supra, we sustain the rejections of claims
11, 12, 26, and 27.

Claims 14 and 29
Appellants argue that “[w]hile Cozzolino discusses manipulation of
workflow representations, there is no discussion that allows a user to drag a
Appeal 2010-011846
Application 11/019,480

9
task in the workflow representation to at least one different position . . . The
only mention of drag is when a user drags the mouse over a button, such as
an Accept button, whereupon a message will appear, such as a user centric
help tip.” App. Br. 29 (emphasis and footnotes omitted). The Examiner
broadly suggests that the disputed limitations are found at paragraphs [0110-
0115] of Cozzolino but has not provided any specific rationale explaining, or
evidence supporting, how the cited portion of the references discloses those
limitations. In the absence of supporting evidence or explanation, we do not
sustain the rejection of claims 14 and 29.

CONCLUSION
Appellants have persuaded us of error in the Examiner’s decision to
reject claims 14 and 29 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over
Davis and Cozzolino. Thus, we do not sustain the Examiner's rejections of
claims 14 and 29. However, we sustain the rejection of claim 1, 3-5, 7-10,
13, 15, 16, 18-20, 22-25, 28, and 30 under 35 U.S.C. § 102(e) as being
anticipated by Davis and the rejection of claims 11, 12, 26, and 27 under 35
U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Davis and Cozzolino.

DECISION
The decision of the Examiner to reject claims 14 and 29 is reversed.
The decision of the Examiner to reject claims 1, 3-5, 7-13, 15, 16, 18-20, 22-
28, and 30 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).

Appeal 2010-011846
Application 11/019,480

10
AFFIRMED-IN-PART

msc