Majed Itani et al.

Patent Trials and Appeals Board

Jan 24, 2020

14060704 - (D) (P.T.A.B. Jan. 24, 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.
14/060,704 10/23/2013 Majed Itani 1301-035U 8279
112025 7590 01/24/2020
Shutts & Bowen LLP
Steven M. Greenberg, Esq.
525 Okeechobee Blvd
# 1100
West Palm Beach, FL 33401
EXAMINER
HUYNH, LINDA TANG
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2145
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
01/24/2020 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):
docketing@crgolaw.com
patents@shutts.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
____________________

BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
____________________

Ex parte MAJED ITANI and DMITRIY KOLEGAYEV
____________________

Appeal 2018-008074
Application 14/060,704
Technology Center 2100
____________________

Before JENNIFER S. BISK, LARRY J. HUME, and
JULIET MITCHELL DIRBA, Administrative Patent Judges.

BISK, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL1
Pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 134(a), Appellant2 appeals from the
Examiner’s decision to reject claims 1, 2, 6, 7, 11, and 12. We have
jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).

1 Throughout this Decision we have considered the Specification filed
October 23, 2013 (“Spec.”), the Final Rejection mailed June 29, 2017
(“Final Act.”), the Appeal Brief filed February 26, 2018 (“Appeal Br.”), the
Examiner’s Answer mailed June 8, 2018 (“Ans.”), and the Reply Brief filed
August 8, 2018 (“Reply Br.”).
2 We use the word “Appellant” to refer to “Applicant” as defined in
37 C.F.R. § 1.42(a). Appellant identifies the real party in interest as
SugarCRM, Inc. Appeal Br. 2.
Appeal 2018-008074
Application 14/060,704

2
We affirm.
BACKGROUND
Appellant’s disclosed embodiments and claimed invention relate to an
overloaded schedule detection and notification in a calendaring and
scheduling system. Spec. ¶¶ 2, 6. Claim 1, reproduced below, is illustrative
of the subject matter on appeal (emphasis added to contested prior-art
limitation):
1. A method for overloaded schedule detection and
notification in a calendaring and scheduling (C&S) system, the
method comprising:
loading a task list for an end user into memory of the
C&S system, the task list comprising a set of tasks
scheduled for completion by the end user in a single day;
displaying the task list in a user interface of the C&S
system;
comparing a known capacity of the end user to complete
tasks in one day to the tasks that are present in the set by
summing a total amount of time required for each of the
tasks in the one day of tasks and comparing the summed
value to a predetermined available amount of time for the
one day available to perform tasks, and determining
whether or not the end user is able to complete all of the
tasks in the set in the single day based upon the known
capacity; and,
responsive to a determination that the capacity of the end
user is such that the end user is unable to complete, in the
single day, all of the tasks in the set, selecting a lowest
priority set of tasks already scheduled for the single day
and then selecting from amongst the lowest priority set of
tasks already scheduled for the single day, a task with a
highest load and testing a rescheduling of the selected
task for a different day and on condition that the
rescheduling of the selected task does not create an
Appeal 2018-008074
Application 14/060,704

3
overload condition in the different day, displaying a
prompt in the user interface of the C&S system indicating
an overloaded condition and requesting rescheduling of
the selected task to the different day so as to alleviate the
overloaded condition in the single day.
Appeal Br. 11–12 (Claims App.).
REJECTIONS
Claims 1, 6, and 11 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being
unpatentable over the combination of US 2009/0288031 A1, published Nov.
19, 2009 (“Solaro”), US 2012/0060166 A1, published March 8, 2012
(“Jardine”), and US 6,578,005 B1, issued June 10, 2003 (“Lesaint”). Final
Act. 5–12.
Claims 2, 7, and 12 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being
unpatentable over the combination of Solaro, Jardine, Lesaint, and US
2009/0094545 A1, published April 9, 2009 (“Kneisel”). Final Act. 12–14.
ANALYSIS
We review the appealed rejections for error based upon the issues
identified by Appellant, and in light of the arguments and evidence produced
thereon. Ex parte Frye, 94 USPQ2d 1072, 1075 (BPAI 2010) (precedential).
To the extent Appellant has not advanced separate, substantive arguments
for particular claims, or other issues, such arguments are waived. 37 C.F.R.
§ 41.37(c)(1)(iv).
We have considered all of Appellant’s arguments and any evidence
presented. We highlight and address specific findings and arguments for
emphasis in our analysis below.
Appeal 2018-008074
Application 14/060,704

4
Rejection of Claims 1, 6, and 11 under 35 U.S.C. § 103
The Examiner finds that claims 1, 6, and 11 would have been obvious
over the combination of Solaro, Jardine, and Lesaint. Final Act. 5–12.
Specifically, the Examiner cites to Solaro as teaching the bulk of the
limitations, but relies on Jardine as disclosing “summing a total amount of
time required for each of the tasks in the one day of tasks and comparing the
summed value to a pre-determined available amount of time,” and on
Lesaint for “selecting from amongst the lowest priority set of the tasks, a
task with a highest load.” Id. at 6 (citing Jardine ¶ 34; Lesaint, 12:52–
13:10).
Appellant argues that Solaro does not disclose “testing a rescheduling
of the selected task for a different day and on condition that the rescheduling
of the selected task does not create an overload condition in the different
day” (the “testing overload condition” limitation). Appeal Br. 7–9. First,
Appellant argues that, although the Examiner explains that the claim term
“testing” encompasses evaluation (Ans. 4), the cited portion of Solaro does
not use the term “evaluation.” Reply Br. 4–5 (citing Solaro ¶ 29). Second,
Appellant argues that Solaro does not disclose the recited testing overload
condition limitation because the determination made by Solaro is whether a
task fits in a particular time slot, not whether more tasks than can be
accommodated are scheduled for completion during that day. Id. at 6.
Appellant’s arguments do not persuade us of reversible error in the
Examiner’s rejection. First, although the cited portions of Solaro do not
explicitly use the words “testing” or “evaluating,” it is clear that Solaro
discloses testing/evaluating whether a task can be rescheduled for a different
day. Solaro ¶¶ 25 (“In this example, the schedule 300 depicts the chemistry
Appeal 2018-008074
Application 14/060,704

5
paper 330 does not fit within the schedule with the Does Not Fit! 340
warning message.”), 29 (“Alternatively, if priority 186 has a high value and
start time 182 is flexible, the routine may place the task to accommodate a
user’s preferred workload at block 550.”). In fact, Appellant concedes that
“Solaro does discuss a determination of whether a task fits in a particular
time slot.” Reply Br. 6. We, therefore, agree with the Examiner that Solaro
at least suggests “testing a rescheduling of the selected task for a different
day.”
Second, although we agree with Appellant that Solaro does not
disclose checking for an overload condition, the Examiner relies on Jardine
for this portion of the limitation. Final Act. 6 (citing Jardine ¶ 34). Jardine
describes fetching “the time allocated for the events during the day” and
determining “the remaining free time available with the user for performing
the tasks from the task list” and “a check is made (306) if the task can be
completed in the determined free time of the user.” Jardine ¶ 34. Moreover,
Jardine discloses that if “the task cannot be completed during the day as the
time required for the task may be more than the free time for the day the task
may be rescheduled (311) for the next day depending on the availability of
the user.” Id.
We, therefore, are not persuaded by Appellant’s arguments that the
Examiner’s rejection is in error with respect to the testing overload condition
limitation.
Accordingly, we sustain the Examiner’s rejection of claim 1 as
obvious over the combination of Solaro, Jardine, and Lesaint. We also
sustain the rejection of claims 6 and 11, which are not argued separately (see
Appeal 2018-008074
Application 14/060,704

6
Appeal Br. 6–10), as obvious over the combination of Solaro, Jardine, and
Lesaint.
Rejection of Claims 2, 7, and 12 under 35 U.S.C. § 103
The Examiner finds that claims 2, 7, and 12 would have been obvious
over the combination of Solaro, Jardine, Lesaint, and Kneisel. Final
Act. 12–14. Appellant does not separately address these claims. See Appeal
Br. 6–10. Accordingly, we sustain the Examiner’s rejection of claims 1, 7,
and 12 as obvious over the combination of Solaro, Jardine, Lesaint, and
Kneisel.
CONCLUSION
We affirm the Examiner’s rejection of claims 1, 2, 6, 7, 11, and 12
under 35 U.S.C. § 103.
DECISION SUMMARY
Claims
Rejected
35 U.S.C.
§
References/Basis Affirmed Reversed
1, 6, 11 103 Solaro, Jardine, Lesaint 1, 6, 11
2, 7, 12 103 Solaro, Jardine, Lesaint,
Kneisel
2, 7, 12
Overall
Outcome
1, 2, 6, 7,
11, 12

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). See
37 C.F.R. § 41.50(f).

AFFIRMED