Ex Parte Stowe

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Dec 8, 2016

13537640 (P.T.A.B. Dec. 8, 2016)

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.
13/537,640 06/29/2012 Todd Stowe 31547-169/ LEN0044PA 5370
24256 7590 12/08/2016
DINSMORE & SHOHL LLP
255 East Fifth Street, Suite 1900
CINCINNATI, OH 45202
EXAMINER
KIM, HEE SOO
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2457
MAIL DATE DELIVERY MODE
12/08/2016 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 PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte TODD STOWE
Appeal 2016-003685
Application 13/537,6401
Technology Center 2400
Before HUNG H. BUI, DAVID J. CUTITTAII, and
PHILLIP A. BENNETT, Administrative Patent Judges.
BUI, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
Appellant seeks our review under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the
Examiner’s Final Office Action rejecting claims 1—20, which are all claims
pending on appeal. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We AFFIRM-IN-PART.2
1 According to Appellant, the real party in interest is LexisNexis, a division
of Reed Elsevier, Inc. App. Br. 2.
2 Our Decision refers to Appellant’s Appeal Brief filed September 16, 2015
(“App. Br.”); Reply Brief filed February 25, 2016 (“Reply Br.”); Examiner’
Answer mailed December 28, 2015 (“Ans.”); Final Office Action mailed
January 29, 2015 (“Final Act.”); and original Specification filed June 29,
2012 (“Spec.”).
Appeal 2016-003685
Application 13/537,640
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Appellant’s invention relates to “systems and methods for delivering
an entity report associated with an attendee of a calendared event.” Spec. 1;
Title.
Claims 1,15, and 18 are independent. Claims 1 and 15 are illustrative
of Appellant’s invention, as reproduced below with disputed limitations in
italics:
1. A method for delivering an entity report associated with
an attendee of a calendared event, the method comprising:
determining, by a computer, an entity associated with the
attendee of the calendared event',
retrieving, by the computer, entity data based on the
determined entity,
generating the entity report, wherein the entity report
includes the retrieved entity data; and
delivering the generated report.
15. A method for delivering an entity report in response to a
user request to receive the entity report in advance of a
calendared event, the method comprising:
receiving, by a computer, a request to receive an entity
report pertaining to an entity in advance of the calendared
event',
retrieving, by the computer, entity data associated with
the entity,
generating the entity report, wherein the entity report
includes the retrieved entity data; and
delivering the generated entity report to the user in
advance of the calendared event.
App. Br. 21, 23 (Claims App’x) (emphasis added).
2
Appeal 2016-003685
Application 13/537,640
Examiner’s Rejections and References
(1) Claims 1—11 and 13—20 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b)
as being anticipated by Brown et al. (US 2003/0069899 Al; published Apr.
10, 2003; “Brown”). Final Act. 3—6.
(2) Claim 12 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Brown and Ellis et al., (US 2010/0191569 Al; published
July 29, 2010). Final Act. 7.
ANALYSIS
35 U.S.C. § 102(b): Claims 1-11 and 13-20
With respect to independent claims 1 and 18, the Examiner finds
Brown discloses Appellant’s “method for delivering an entity report
associated with an attendee of a calendared event” including ah the recited
steps. Final Act. 3^4 (citing Brown || 8, 9, 11).
Appellant disputes the Examiner’s factual findings regarding Brown.
App. Br. 12—15; Reply Br. 2—5. For example, Appellant argues Brown does
not disclose “determining, by a computer, an entity associated with the
attendee of the calendared event,” as recited in claims 1 and 18. App. Br.
12—13; Reply Br. 2—3. According to Appellant, the term “entity is a
company, a non-profit organization, an educational institution, a partnership,
a government entity, or the like” as described in paragraph 25 of Appellant’s
Specification. App. Br. 12. Appellant argues:
Brown merely discloses transmitting electronic information on a
scheduled event, receiving a response from an attendee
indicating acceptance of the scheduled event, providing a
scheduled event record, and receiving a personal profile record
including personal preference information of an attendee.
However, the cited portion of Brown is wholly silent with respect
3
Appeal 2016-003685
Application 13/537,640
to determining an entity associated with the attendee of a
calendared event, as recited in each of independent claims 1 and
18.
Id. at 13 (citing Brown | 8).
The Examiner responds that: (1) “given the broadest reasonable
interpretation, determining the entity can be made by querying a database for
the entity information” and (2) because Brown’s PIM program “may be
intended for use by a company or organization to provide information
related to the person’s involvement with the company or organization” and
because Brown’s query can be made to determine users whose records
indicate that they accepted to attend the scheduled event sponsored by the
event provider, Brown’s teachings “would allow a person to determine the
entity hosting the event.'” Ans. 3^4 (citing Brown || 8, 28, 73) (emphasis
added).
We do not agree with the Examiner. Anticipation under 35 U.S.C.
§ 102 is a question of fact. Brown v. 3M, 265 F.3d 1349, 1351 (Fed. Cir.
2001). A claim is anticipated only if each and every element as set forth in
the claim is found, either expressly or inherently described in a single prior
art reference. Verdegaal Bros. v. Union Oil Co. of California, 814 F.2d 628,
631 (Fed. Cir. 1987). At the outset, we note Appellant’s claims 1 and 18 are
broad but each require “determining [1] an entity associated with [2] the
attendee of the calendared event” for “delivering [1] an entity report
associated with [2] an attendee of a calendared event.”
In contrast to Appellant’s claims 1 and 18, Brown discloses a method
and system “for providing [personal preference] information on scheduled
events to attendees of the event.” Brown | 8. According to Brown, when an
4
Appeal 2016-003685
Application 13/537,640
attendee accepts a scheduled event, “[a] response is transmitted indicating
acceptance of the scheduled event” and “calendar information for an
attendee accepting the scheduled event is generated from the calendar
records.” Brown 19. An example scheduled event record is shown in
Brown’s Figure 3A, as reproduced below:
fig. as
...1
Dste TSw PGJitKj!
74
J.................
Scheduled Svent
Scheduled ivsni Record'
Figure 3 A of Brown shows a user scheduled event record 52,
including a date 70, a time period 72 indicating a time range of the event,
and a scheduled event description 74 providing (calendar) information of the
scheduled event.
An example user calendar record is shown in Brown’s Figure 8, as
reproduced below:
40B
Figure 8 of Brown shows a user calendar record including scheduled events.
5
Appeal 2016-003685
Application 13/537,640
Contrary to the Examiner’s positions, Brown does not disclose any
querying a database for “entity information” or determining “an entity
associated with the attendee of a calendared event” as suggested by the
Examiner. Ans. 3^4 (citing Brown || 8, 28, 73). Instead, paragraph 28 of
Brown describes that the scheduler program can be used by different types
of users, such as: (1) “a single individual” or (2) “a company or organization
to provide information related to that persons involvement with the company
or organization.” Likewise, paragraph 73 of Brown describes the scheduler
program used to permit a user to determine, via a query of the PIM database,
all users that have accepted the scheduled event sponsored by the event
provider (e.g., any person planning an event, including companies planning
events for employees, individuals planning a party, businesses planning a
meeting or conference, etc.). Brown || 67, 73.
While an event provider as disclosed by Brown can be considered as
Appellant’s claimed “entity,” Brown does not determine such “an entity
associated with the attendee of a calendared event.” Nor does Brown
retrieve “entity data based on the determined entity” and generate “an entity
report” and then deliver such “an entity report associated with an attendee of
a calendared event” as recited in Appellant’s claims 1 and 18.
As recognized by Appellant, “it would be possible for the system of
Brown to determine an entity associated with the attendee of a calendared
event” for reporting purposes. Reply Br. 3 (emphasis omitted). Appellant
argues, however, that “Brown is required to expressly or inherently disclose”
this feature. Reply Br. 3. We understand such a feature would have been
obvious to those skilled in the art; however, obviousness is not the basis for
the Examiner’s rejection of claims 1 and 18. As such, we are constrained to
6
Appeal 2016-003685
Application 13/537,640
reverse the Examiner’s anticipation rejection of claims 1 and 18 and their
respective dependent claims 2—14, 19, and 20, based on Brown.
35 U.S.C. § 102(b): Claims 15-17
Independent claim 15 is broader than independent claims 1 and 8, and
does not recite the distinction between (1) “an entity” and (2) “an attendee of
a calendared event.” Instead, Appellant’s claim 15 simply recites
“delivering an entity report in response to a user request to receive the entity
report” without any reference to “an attendee of a calendared event.”
The Examiner finds claims 15—17 are similar in scope to claims 1—14
and are anticipated by Brown for “the same rationale” given to claim 1.
Final Act. 6.
Appellant argues Brown does not disclose: (1) “receiving, by a
computer, a request to receive an entity report pertaining to an entity in
advance of the calendared event;” (2) “retrieving, by the computer, entity
data associated with the entity;” and (3) “generating the entity report,
wherein the entity report includes the retrieved entity data,” as recited in
claim 15. App. Br. 18—19.
We are not persuaded by Appellant’s arguments. In the absence of
the association between (1) “an entity” and (2) “an attendee of a calendared
event,” the terms “entity” and “entity report” can be interpreted to
encompass any MS Outlook-type program available to allow a user to
schedule a calendared event and to receive a report regarding a scheduled
event, or in this case, “an event notification” disclosed by Brown such as “an
email, HTML webpage, or other electronic document” to transmit to the user
regarding a scheduled event. Brown | 60; see also Tflf 8—11, 28, 73, Fig. 7
7
Appeal 2016-003685
Application 13/537,640
(step 350 “receive request for calendar information for a specified time
interval for a user”), and Fig. 13 (step 600 “provide event notification to
user”).
For these reasons, we sustain the Examiner’s anticipation rejection of
claim 15 based on Brown, and its dependent claim 17, which Appellant does
not argue separately. App. Br. 20.
Claim 16 depends from claim 15, and further comprises “receiving a
time at which the user desires to receive the entity report, wherein the
generated entity report is delivered based on the time.”
Appellant argues Brown only discloses providing information on
scheduled events to attendees of the event, and does not disclose “receiving
a time at which the user desires to receive the entity report, wherein the
generated entity report is delivered based on the time,” as recited in claim
16. App. Br. 19-20.
We are unpersuaded. As correctly recognized by the Examiner, “a
trigger signal for a user” is generated during the time frame of the scheduled
event. Ans. 7. Moreover, Brown discloses an “event notification” is
generated based on a calendar time period, for example, “every half-hour,
hour, etc., information on the scheduled event description 74 and the
location/activity description 106 (FIGS. 3a, d) in the located scheduled event
52 and filtered position 58 records, respectively, that fall within the calendar
time periods that span the specified time interval.” Brown 148.
For these reasons, we also sustain the Examiner’s anticipation
rejection of claim 16 based on Brown.
8
Appeal 2016-003685
Application 13/537,640
CONCLUSION
On the record before us, we conclude Appellant has demonstrated the
Examiner erred in rejecting claims 1—14 and 18—20, but not claims 15—17.
DECISION
As such, we AFFIRM the Examiner’s Final Rejection of claims 15—
17, and REVERSE the Examiner’s Final Rejection of claims 1—14 and 18—
20.
No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with
this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a)(l)(iv).
AFFIRMED-IN-PART
9