Ex Parte Stoner

Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences

Sep 21, 2011

11153975 (B.P.A.I. Sep. 21, 2011)

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.
11/153,975 06/16/2005 Chris Stoner LOT920050052US1
(7321-102
8373
46321 7590 09/22/2011
CAREY, RODRIGUEZ, GREENBERG & O''KEEFE, LLP
STEVEN M. GREENBERG
950 PENINSULA CORPORATE CIRCLE
SUITE 2022
BOCA RATON, FL 33487
EXAMINER
CHOY, PAN G
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
3624
MAIL DATE DELIVERY MODE
09/22/2011 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
____________

BEFORE THE BOARD OF PATENT APPEALS
AND INTERFERENCES
____________

Ex parte CHRIS STONER
____________

Appeal 2010-006427
Application 11/153,975
Technology Center 3600
____________

Before MURRIEL E. CRAWFORD, HUBERT C. LORIN, and BIBHU R.
MOHANTY, Administrative Patent Judges.

CRAWFORD, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL

Appeal 2010-006427
Application 11/153,975

2
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Appellants seeks our review under 35 U.S.C. § 134 of the Examiner’s
final decision rejecting claims 1 to 13. We have jurisdiction over the appeal
under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We AFFIRM.
BACKGROUND
Appellant’s invention is directed to calendaring and scheduling
systems and more particularly to the field of storing meeting information in
a calendaring and scheduling system (Spec., para. [0001]).
Claim 1 is illustrative:
1. A calendaring and scheduling (C&S) data
processing system comprising:
a data processing system with processor and
memory;
a C&S system executing in the data
processing system providing a calendar view for
viewing scheduled events;
a calendar folder data store in the data
processing system configured to store a plurality of
different calendar folders, each of said different
calendar folders storing differently categorized
calendared events; and,
calendar folder processing logic executing in
the data processing system and enabled to manage
storage and retrieval of calendar events to said
different calendar folders in said calendar folder
data store.

Appellant appeals the following rejections:
Claims 1 to 2 and 4 to 13 under 35 U.S.C. § 102(e) as anticipated by
Guiheneuf (US Pub. 2005/0262164 A1, pub. Nov. 24, 2005).
Appeal 2010-006427
Application 11/153,975

3
Claim 3 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Guiheneuf in
view of Girling (US Pat. 6,092,067, iss. Jul. 18, 2000).

ISSUE
Did the Examiner err in rejecting the claims because Guiheneuf does
not disclose different calendar folders storing differently categorized
calendared events?

FACTUAL FINDINGS
We adopt the Examiner’s findings as our own. (Ans. 3 to 4).

ANALYSIS
Anticipation
We are not persuaded that the Examiner erred in rejecting the claims
by Appellant's argument that Guiheneuf does not disclose different calendar
folders storing differently categorized calendared events. The Appellant
argues that the Examiner misconstrues the claim language “differently
categorized calendared events” to mean differently categorized calendars.
We agree with the Examiner’s construction of the phrase “different calendar
folders storing differently categorized calendared events,” found at page 11
of the Answer. Specifically, in our view, when the above referenced phrase
of claim 1 is given its broadest reasonable interpretation, the term is broad
enough to encompass different calendars that store events that fall into
different categories.
Appellant argues that paragraphs [0034] through [0073] do not
disclose differently categorized calendared events. The Examiner does not
Appeal 2010-006427
Application 11/153,975

4
rely on this portion of the reference for disclosing differently categorized
events. Rather, the Examiner relies on Figure 1, items 71 to 73 for this
disclosure. We agree with the Examiner that Guiheneuf discloses and
depicts in Figure 1, different calendars that store differently categorized
calendared events. In this regard Guiheneuf discloses a work calendar 71, a
DVD release calendar 72, and a private calendar 73 (para. [0026]). As such,
we agree with the Examiner that Guiheneuf depicts different calendar
folders storing differently categorized calendared events.
In view of the forgoing, we will sustain the Examiner’s rejection of
claim 1. We will also sustain the Examiner’s rejection of claims 2 and 4 to
13 because the Appellant has not argued the separate patentability of these
claims.

Obviousness
We will sustain the Examiner’s rejection of claim 3 because the
Appellant relies on the arguments made in response to the rejection of claim
1.

DECISION
The decision of the Examiner 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). See 37 C.F.R.
§ 1.136(a)(1).

AFFIRMED

Appeal 2010-006427
Application 11/153,975

5

hh