KONOLABS ,INC.

Patent Trials and Appeals Board

Aug 5, 2020

14763170 - (D) (P.T.A.B. Aug. 5, 2020)

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.
14/763,170 07/24/2015 Sun Hae KIM 112937-12(FE14043/
PCT/US)
1410
24256 7590 08/05/2020
DINSMORE & SHOHL LLP
255 EAST FIFTH STREET, SUITE 1900
CINCINNATI, OH 45202
EXAMINER
KYEREME-TUAH, AKOSUA P
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
3623
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
08/05/2020 ELECTRONIC
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.
Notice of the Office communication was sent electronically on above-indicated "Notification Date" to the
following e-mail address(es):
CincyPAIR@dinsmore.com
elise.merkel@dinsmore.com
jennifer.baker@dinsmore.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
____________

BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
____________

Ex parte SUN HAE KIM and JUNG HEE RYU
____________

Appeal 2020-001433
Application 14/763,170
Technology Center 3600
____________

Before JEFFREY N. FREDMAN, TAWEN CHANG, and
RACHEL H. TOWNSEND, Administrative Patent Judges.

FREDMAN, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL

This is an appeal1,2 under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) involving claims to a
computer program for executing a method performed in a system for
managing schedule. The Examiner rejected the claims as obvious. We have
jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). We affirm.

1 We use the word “Appellant” to refer to “applicant” as defined in 37
C.F.R. § 1.42. Appellant identifies the Real Party in Interest as
KONOLABS, INC (see Appeal Br. 2).
2 We have considered and herein refer to the Specification of July 24, 2015
(“Spec.”); Final Office Action of Mar. 19, 2019 (“Final Act.”); Appeal Brief
of Aug. 19, 2019 (“Appeal Br.”); Examiner’s Answer of Oct. 15, 2019
(“Ans.”); and Reply Brief of Dec. 16, 2019 (“Reply Br.”).
Appeal 2020-001433
Application 14/763,170

2

Statement of the Case
Background
In “a conventional calendar program (or application), a user should
personally find an empty time slot in a time table, and manually enter
specific information on the event” (Spec. 1:12–15). “Further, a conventional
calendar program may only provide schedule management functionality for
a single user, and thus, when managing an event in which two or more users
are involved, the users cannot avoid the inconvenience of personally
contacting each other” (id. at 1:23 to 2:1).
The Claims
Claims 1–7, 10–13, and 16 are on appeal. We note that Appellant
does not argue the claims separately (see Appeal Br. 20), so dependent
claims stand or fall with claim 1 because separate reasons for their
patentability were not provided in the Appeal Brief. 37 C.F.R.
§ 41.37(c)(1)(iv) (2018).
Independent claim 1 is representative and is reproduced below:
1. A non-transitory computer-readable storage medium
having stored thereon a computer program for executing a
method performed in a system for managing schedule, the
system comprising a user management unit and an event
arrangement management unit, and the method comprising the
steps of:
(a) by the user management unit, receiving a request to
arrange an event from a terminal device of a first user and
receiving an approval for the request to arrange the event from
a terminal device of a second user involved in the event; and
(b) by the event arrangement management unit,
automatically determining time and location of the event with
reference to at least one of event information included in the
request to arrange the event or the approval therefor, at least a
Appeal 2020-001433
Application 14/763,170

3

part of schedule information of the first user, at least a part of
schedule information of the second user, personal preference
information of the first user received from the terminal device
of the first user, personal preference information of the second
user received from the terminal device of the second user,
context information extracted from message information on the
first user, and context information extracted from message
information on the second user, wherein the personal preference
information is entered by the corresponding user or
automatically extracted from the message information on the
corresponding user,
wherein in step (b), the time of the event is determined
from among the time periods which do not overlap with leisure
time periods each arranged automatically or by the first or
second user and included in the schedule of the first or second
user,
wherein the leisure time periods of the first or second
user are automatically arranged in the schedule of the first or
second user based on basic information on the leisure time
periods of the first or second user received from the terminal
device of the first or second user, avoiding conflict with, in
preference to, or irrespective of the schedule of the second or
first user,
wherein the basic information includes type, duration and
frequency of rest or self-enrichment of the first or second user,
and
wherein the type of rest or self-enrichment of the first or
second user is determined depending on types of other events
adjacent to the leisure time periods of the first or second user in
the schedule of the first or second user.

Appeal 2020-001433
Application 14/763,170

4

The Rejections
A. The Examiner rejected claims 1–5, 7, 12, and 16 under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103 as obvious over Bellers,3 Sellen,4 and Randall5 (Final Act. 5–22).
B. The Examiner rejected claim 6 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as obvious over
Bellers, Sellen, Randall, and Norton6 (Final Act. 22–23).
C. The Examiner rejected claims 10 and 11 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as
obvious over Bellers, Sellen, Randall, and Weir7 (Final Act. 24–26).
D. The Examiner rejected claim 13 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as obvious
over Bellers, Sellen, Randall, and May8 (Final Act. 26–27).

A. 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) over Bellers, Sellen, and Randall
The Examiner finds Bellers teaches a program that schedules events
for multiple users based on calendar information and event information (see
Final Act. 5–8). The Examiner acknowledges that Bellers does not teach
incorporating leisure time periods into the scheduling program (see id. at 8–
9). The Examiner finds Sellen teaches incorporating leisure time
information “noting Sundays or working days” (id. at 9). The Examiner
finds it obvious “to have modified the teachings of Bellers with these
aforementioned teachings of Sellen with the motivation to better facilitate
the scheduling of a meeting at a mutually convenient time” (id. at 10).

3 Bellers et al., US 2014/0172483 A1, published June 19, 2014.
4 Sellen et al., US 2004/0093380 A1, published May 13, 2004.
5 Randall Levitt, US 2010/0082376 A1, published Apr. 1, 2010. The parties
refer to this reference as “Randall” so we shall do so as well.
6 Norton et al., US 2011/0184768 A1, published July 28, 2011.
7 Weir et al., US 2009/0168609 A1, published July 2, 2009.
8 May et al., US 2008/0195455 A1, published Aug. 14, 2008.
Appeal 2020-001433
Application 14/763,170

5

The Examiner also acknowledges that Bellers and Selden do not teach
“wherein the type of rest or self-enrichment of the first or second user is
determined depending on types of other events adjacent to the leisure time
periods of the first or second user in the schedule of the first or second user”
as recited in claim 1 (Final Act. 10). The Examiner finds Randall addresses
this limitation, teaching for example, that “entertainment suggestions will be
given higher priority immediately after the project completion date, or one
week before project completion (to begin pre pa ring for vacation or a short
relaxing break” (id. at 11). The Examiner finds the further combination with
Randall obvious in order “have activities to perform based on upcoming
events” (id.).
The issue with respect to this rejection is: Does a preponderance of the
evidence of record support the Examiner’s conclusion that Bellers, Selden,
and Randall render claim 1 obvious?
Findings of Fact
1. Bellers teaches “computer program products for creating and
managing events having multiple participants, such as business meetings”
(Bellers ¶ 2).
2. Bellers teaches, regarding step (a), that an “event management
system may send an event proposal to each participant” (Bellers ¶ 29).
Bellers explains that “[e]xemplary events may include a meeting with a
client, a supplier, between employees of the corporation, or a training
session or other event where multiple participants from a corporation are
required to attend” (Bellers ¶ 64).
3. Bellers also teaches regarding step (a), that the system “may
cause the event management system 18 to send one or more of the options to
Appeal 2020-001433
Application 14/763,170

6

the participants. . . . Each option may raise an approval flow for corporate
participants. The approval flow may include approval by the participant”
(Bellers ¶ 70).
4. Bellers teaches, regarding the terminal devices recited in step
(a), that “[e]ach of the participant and organizer systems . . . may be a
desktop computer, laptop computer, tablet computer, smart phone, or any
other computing device that provides the user with access” (Bellers ¶ 31).
5. Bellers teaches, regarding step (b), that “the event organizer
module 56 may access participant agendas using, for example, a WebService
API, which may allow the connection to the participants’ calendars” (Bellers
¶ 44).
6. Bellers teaches, regarding step (b), that the “event organizer
module 56 may also find the best place/date for the meeting” (Bellers ¶ 44).
7. Bellers teaches, regarding the schedule information for step (b),
that “[p]articipant availability data may also be retrieved from a personal
information management application provided to employees by the
corporation. This application may provide participant calendars, e-mail,
address books, and to-do lists, from which the event management system 18
may obtain participant identities, availability, and other participant data”
(Bellers ¶ 65).
8. Bellers teaches, regarding the preference information in step
(b), that the “participant options screen 1200 may enable the participant to
select their preferences for the event. . . . The participant may be provided
with a calendar overview per proposed date . . . The participant may rank
the options to provide the system with information regarding the
participants’ preferences” (Bellers ¶ 85).
Appeal 2020-001433
Application 14/763,170

7

9. Bellers teaches, regarding the first “wherein” clause, that “[o]n
the calendar, the event organizer may also see when they and/or a participant
is busy. However, participant calendar data may be filtered so that
information relating to private details of the participant’s calendar, such as
the content of appointments, is filtered out” (Bellers ¶ 82).
10. The Examiner acknowledges, regarding the next three
“wherein” clauses, that while Bellers teaches “checking calendar for
common availability times for participants,” Bellers does not specifically
address unavailability due to leisure periods or including information on the
leisure periods (see Final Act. 8–9).
11. Sellen teaches “devices and software for enabling people to
schedule daily events with each other” (Sellen ¶ 1).
12. Sellen teaches, regarding step (a), that
users of mobile computing devices on entering the same
vicinity are able to generate a local communication link
between each other’s mobile computing devices in order to
directly share diary data with each other either to update each
other’s diary data or to facilitate the scheduling of a meeting at
a mutually convenient time.
(Sellen ¶ 21).
13. Sellen teaches, regarding the leisure time “wherein” clauses,
that “users of the mobile computing devices . . . decide to schedule a
meeting together. . . . The user of the device . . . may also be able to
stipulate whether time slots relevant to work time only or relevant to leisure
time only or all time slots are to be selected” (Sellen ¶ 53).
14. Sellen teaches:
For example, if it is Sunday and the user of the computing
device (2) stipulates work time slots only and the device is
Appeal 2020-001433
Application 14/763,170

8

automatically set to select a period of a week hence, then a
display would be created showing working days only within the
next week, ie. Monday to Friday and working hours only, eg.
09:00 to 17:00.
(Sellen ¶ 53).
15. Randall teaches:
Calendar applications are not only a sole client tool, but
also can be network accessible to block out time across many
users. In other words, user calendars can be made accessible to
other users for blocking out time on an employee calendar or
viewing the schedule of other users for meeting and planning
purposes.
(Randall ¶ 2).
16. Randall teaches software that suggests “activities to be
performed during time slots of a user schedule” and “can also apply filtering
to generate suggestions based on user location, preferences (stated or
learned), user history, user interaction with content and candidate activities,
targeted advertising, content placement, and so on” (Randall ¶¶ 5–6).
17. Randall teaches an exemplary use of the calendar to apply
adjacent events to the duration and frequency of a rest period, where if a
scheduled activity was inserted into the user’s schedule by a
supervisor, this is an indication the scheduled meeting is
important, and attendance to the meeting should not be
jeopardized. Accordingly, suggestions for open time slots
proximate to the meeting will be weighted to ensure that the
user makes the event. In other words, if the meeting is at 1 PM,
a suggested activity for a 1-hour time slot beginning at noon
can be limited to staying on the corporate campus (e.g., walking
the campus for exercise) rather than traveling to a distant
business to perform a personal task, which could risk not
making the meeting.
(Randall ¶ 21).
Appeal 2020-001433
Application 14/763,170

9

18. Randall teaches an example where “suggestions from the
employer source can be given higher priority with one month of project
completion, while entertainment suggestions will be given higher priority
immediately after the project completion date, or one week before project
completion (to begin preparing for vacation or a short relaxing break)”
(Randall ¶ 22).
19. Randall teaches “work-related suggestions that surface after the
end of the business day can be filtered out of consideration, and that the
work-related suggestions are brought back into consideration at the start of
the business day” (Randall ¶ 40).
20. Randall teaches “[f]or example, in an open two hour time slot,
first go pick up clothes from the cleaners, pick up medication at pharmacy,
and then have lunch. In yet a more complex example, location is considered”
(Randall ¶ 43).
21. Randall teaches “if the user more frequently selects a dining
establishment at a specific time, the result can be to more frequently suggest
this establishment on the candidate list for that time” (Randall ¶ 54).
Principles of Law
“The combination of familiar elements according to known methods
is likely to be obvious when it does no more than yield predictable results.”
KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 416 (2007).
Analysis
We adopt the Examiner’s findings of fact and reasoning regarding the
scope and content of the prior art (Final Act. 5–22; FF 1–21) and agree that
the claims are obvious over Bellers, Sellen, and Randall. We address
Appellant’s arguments below.
Appeal 2020-001433
Application 14/763,170

10

Appellant contends
[t]he combination of Bellers, Sellen, and Randall does
not teach or fairly suggest at least “wherein the leisure time
periods of the first or second user are automatically arranged in
the schedule of the first or second user based on basic
information on the leisure time periods of the first or second
user received from the terminal device of the first or second
user, avoiding conflict with, in preference to, or irrespective of
the schedule of the second or first user, wherein the basic
information includes type, duration and frequency of rest or
self-enrichment of the first or second user,” (emphasis added)
as recited in independent claims 1 and 16.
(Appeal Br. 13). Appellant repeatedly and separately argues that Bellers
does not teach “arranging time periods based on basic information including
type, duration and frequency of the first user or second user” (id. at 14–15);
that the “leisure time in Sellen is not automatically arranged in the schedule
of the user based on basic information on the leisure time periods of the
first or second user received from the terminal device of the first or second
user . . . where in basic information includes type, duration and frequency
of rest or self-enrichment” (id. at 17); and that “Randall does not cure the
deficiencies of Sellen” (id. at 19).
We are not persuaded by these arguments because “the test [for
obviousness] is what the combined teachings of the references would have
suggested to those of ordinary skill in the art.” In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413,
425 (CCPA 1981).
In this case, Bellers teaches a computer program for managing a
person’s schedule (FF 1) that comprises an event management system that
receives user information from devices to arrange events (FF 2, 4) and
obtain approvals (FF 3) as required by claim 1, preamble and step (a).
Appeal 2020-001433
Application 14/763,170

11

Bellers teaches that the event management system may automatically obtain
schedule information from the users (FF 5, 7) in order to “find the best
place/date for the meeting” (FF 6) based in part on personal preference
information (FF 8) as required by claim 1, step (b).
As to the “wherein” clauses, Bellers teaches to avoid overlaps with
previously selected times (FF 9), but does not address coordinating that
overlap based on the type, duration, or frequency of the leisure time (FF 10).
However, Sellen teaches a scheduling program (FF 11) that
automatically addresses availability of leisure time slots (FF 13–14).
Randall teaches a scheduling program (FF 15) that, consistent with the
“wherein” clauses of claim 1, looks at adjacent events to automatically
arrange leisure periods based on type, duration, and frequency information,
as required by claim 1 (FF 16–18).
In particular, Randall teaches an example where, after a supervisor
inserts an activity into a user’s schedule, the software automatically suggests
a type of activity such as a leisure activity like “walking the campus for
exercise” based on the available duration with “a suggested activity for a 1-
hour time slot” (FF 17; cf. FF 18–20). Randall also teaches that frequency
may play a role, teaching “if the user more frequently selects a dining
establishment at a specific time, the result can be to more frequently suggest
this establishment on the candidate list for that time” (FF 21).
Thus, the evidence of record does not support Appellant’s position,
because Sellen suggests automatic arrangement of leisure periods and
Randall teaches using information regarding the type, duration, and
frequency of the leisure period (FF 18–21) and teaches that the type of
Appeal 2020-001433
Application 14/763,170

12

leisure may be based on events adjacent to the leisure time periods being
scheduled (FF 17).
To the extent that Appellant may be arguing the references separately
and that a single reference does not teach all the elements of the claim,
“[n]on-obviousness cannot be established by attacking references
individually where the rejection is based upon the teachings of a
combination of references.” In re Merck & Co., 800 F.2d 1091, 1097 (Fed.
Cir. 1986). In determining obviousness, furthermore, a reference “must be
read, not in isolation, but for what it fairly teaches in combination with the
prior art as a whole.” Id. Here, we agree with the Examiner that the prior
art of Bellers, Sellen, and Randall, read as a whole, reasonably suggests
automatic arrangement of leisure time periods into schedules based on
information provided by the users of the scheduling software to avoid
scheduling conflicts and to select events based on the type, duration, and
frequency of the particular leisure activity desired as required by claim 1
(see FF 1–21).
Conclusion of Law
A preponderance of the evidence of record supports the Examiner’s
conclusion that Bellers, Selden, and Randall render claim 1 obvious.

B–D.
Appellant does not separately argue these further rejections including
Norton, Weir, and May, instead contending that “Norton does not cure the
deficiencies of Bellers, Sellen, and Randall”; that “Weir does not cure the
deficiencies of Bellers, Sellen, and Randall”; and that “May does not cure
the deficiencies of Bellers, Sellen, and Randall” (see Appeal Br. 20–22).
Appeal 2020-001433
Application 14/763,170

13

Having found no deficiency in the rejection of claim 1 based on Bellers,
Sellen and Randall for the reasons given above, we also find that the further
combinations with Norton, Weir, and May renders the dependent claims
obvious for the reasons given by the Examiner (see Final Act. 22–27).

CONCLUSION
In summary:
Claims
Rejected
35 U.S.C. § Reference(s)/Basis Affirmed Reversed
1–5, 7,
12, 16
103 Bellers, Selden
Randall
1–5, 7, 12,
16

6 103 Bellers, Selden
Randall, Norton
6
10, 11 103 Bellers, Selden
Randall, Weir
10, 11
13 103 Bellers, Selden
Randall, May
13
Overall
Outcome
1–7, 10–13,
16

No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with
this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a).

AFFIRMED