Microsoft Technology Licensing, LLC

Patent Trials and Appeals Board

Jan 29, 2021

2019006113 (P.T.A.B. Jan. 29, 2021)

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.
14/270,585 05/06/2014 Jagannatha Raju Dantuluri 14917.2590US01/341319.01 3630
141674 7590 01/29/2021
Faegre Drinker Biddle & Reath LLP (Microsoft)
1500 K Street, N.W.
Suite 1100
Washington, DC 20005
EXAMINER
LEGGETT, ANDREA C.
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2171
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
01/29/2021 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):
DBRIPDocket@faegredrinker.com
usdocket@microsoft.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE

BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD

Ex parte JAGANNATHA RAJU DANTULURI, KARAN SINGH,
SHIRA WEINBERG, RICHA PRASAD, and
COLLEEN ELIZABETH HAMILTON

Appeal 2019-006113
Application 14/270,585
Technology Center 2100

Before ROBERT E. NAPPI, JUSTIN BUSCH, and
MICHAEL T. CYGAN, Administrative Patent Judges.

CYGAN, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL

STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 134(a), Appellant appeals from the
Examiner’s decision to reject claims 1–12, 14–16, and 21–25, all of the
claims pending in the application.1 Appeal Br. 16–25 (Claims App.). We
have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We AFFIRM IN PART.

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 Microsoft
Technology Licensing, LLC. Appeal Br. 3.
Appeal 2019-006113
Application 14/270,585

2
CLAIMED SUBJECT MATTER
The claimed invention generally relates to notification of scheduling
conflicts. Spec. ¶ 3. A user may keep appointments through various
applications and services, such as a work calendar. Id. Additionally, the
user may have behavior patterns, not accounted for in their calendar, that are
indicative of their availability. Id. For example, the time and location data
of a user’s mobile device may indicate that the user routinely goes to a
movie theater on Friday nights. Id. Such extra-calendrical data may be used
to create an inferred calendar event for those routine Friday night movies.
Id. Such an inferred calendar event would not appear on the user’s calendar,
but instead, would be kept in a shadow calendar that can be used to warn a
user of potential conflicts when a new appointment is made on the user’s
calendar. Fig. 3A. Where a conflict exists, the user may be queried, and in
response, the inferred calendar event, kept in the shadow calendar, may be
adjusted. Fig. 3B.
Independent claim 1 is illustrative:
1. A method for surfacing scheduling conflicts, comprising:
generating, by a computing device, a first inferred calendar
entry for an inferred event associated with a first user inferred
behavior pattern from a set of user signals for a first user,
wherein the set of user signals does not include an explicit
calendar entry defined by the first user;
evaluating user appointment data for the first user to identify a
potential conflict between a user appointment for the first user
and the first inferred calendar entry;
providing, by the computing device, a warning of the potential
conflict to the first user;
receiving user feedback associated with the warning; and
Appeal 2019-006113
Application 14/270,585

3
modifying the first inferred calendar entry based on the user
feedback.
REFERENCES
Name Reference Date
Wilkerson US 2012/0010805 A1 Jan. 12, 2012
Chakra et al.
(“Chakra”)
US 2012/0233563 A1 Sept. 13, 2012
Bowers et al.
(“Bowers”)
US 2015/0208219 A1 July 23, 2015

REJECTIONS
Claims 1–3, 5, 7–12, 14, 21, and 23–25 are rejected under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103 as being obvious over the combination of Chakra and Bowers.
Claims 4, 6, 15, 16, and 22 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as
being obvious over the combination of Chakra, Bowers, and Wilkerson.

OPINION
We have reviewed the Examiner’s obviousness rejections in light of
Appellant’s contentions that the Examiner has erred. Non-Final Act. 2–26;
Ans. 3–13; Appeal Br. 8–14; Reply Br. 2–7. We are persuaded by
Appellant’s contention of Examiner error in rejecting claims 1–12, 14–16,
23, and 25 under 35 U.S.C. § 103. We are not persuaded by Appellant’s
contention of Examiner error in rejecting claims 21, 22, and 24. We begin
with claim 1.
Appellant argues that the Examiner’s combination of Chakra and
Bowers does not teach or suggest each and every limitation of claim 1.
Appeal Br. 9. Specifically, Appellant argues that the combination does not
teach or suggest “a first inferred calendar entry for an inferred event
Appeal 2019-006113
Application 14/270,585

4
associated with a first user inferred behavior pattern from a set of user
signals for a first user, wherein the set of user signals does not include an
explicit calendar entry defined by the first user,” or “modifying the first
inferred calendar entry.” Id. (emphasis omitted).
The Examiner relies on Chakra for teaching or suggesting “a first
inferred calendar entry for an inferred event associated with a first user
inferred behavior pattern,” citing to Chakra’s “first scheduling pattern” that
specifies daily time periods in which events are typically scheduled for a
user, such as 8am to 6pm. Final Act. 3 (citing Chakra ¶¶ 19, 31). The
Examiner considers an event scheduled in accordance with the first
scheduling pattern to be an “inferred calendar entry” because it is based on
previous behavior patterns of the user; i.e., the user’s scheduling pattern as
modified by the user’s location. Ans. 6. The Examiner finds Chakra’s
inferred calendar entry to be generated by the user, and therefore, Chakra
does not teach the claimed “generating, by a computing device, a first
inferred calendar entry.” Final Act. 5; Ans. 5–7, 11. The Examiner also
finds Chakra to lack a teaching of “wherein the set of user signals does not
include an explicit calendar entry defined by the first user.” Final Act. 5.
For these teachings, the Examiner points to Bowers. Id.
The Examiner characterizes Bowers as also “generating a first
inferred calendar entry for an inferred event associated with a first user
inferred behavior pattern,” citing to Bowers’ location-based triggering event
that may instruct calendar appointments to be retrieved. Final Act. 13
(citing Bowers ¶¶ 25–26); Ans. 11 (citing Bowers, ¶¶ 20–21, as teaching
action based upon the time of day). The Examiner relates Bowers’ location-
based triggers to a set of user signals that does not include an explicit
Appeal 2019-006113
Application 14/270,585

5
calendar entry defined by the user. Final Act. 5–6. The Examiner finds that
the combination of Chakra and Bowers would teach “the computing device
[that] generate[s] events (calendar entry) for the user based on user behavior
patterns … such as time of day, travel booking services, etc.” Ans. 12.
The Examiner further relies on Chakra for teaching or suggesting
“modifying the first inferred calendar entry,” citing to Chakra’s calendar
system that prompts the user to decide whether to schedule, decline, or
reschedule a calendar event for a more suitable time. Final Act. 5 (citing
Chakra ¶¶ 32, 36–37); Ans. 7–8. The Examiner finds this functionality of
Chakra to be “consistent with modifying the calendar entry.” Ans. 10.
Appellant first argues that Chakra does not teach modifying the first
inferred calendar entry based upon the user feedback. Reply Br. 2.
Appellant argues that the Examiner has related the inferred calendar entry to
Chakra’s teaching of an event that the user has scheduled in accordance with
the inferred behavior pattern. Id. Appellant further argues that the
Examiner has not shown Chakra to further prompt the user to reschedule that
event, which has already been scheduled in accordance with the first
scheduling pattern. Id. Appellant argues the modifying is based on
evaluating “user appointment data” for a potential conflict with “the first
inferred calendar entry,” which is not reflected in the Examiner’s findings.
Appeal Br. 12.
We are persuaded by Appellant’s argument. Under the Examiner’s
mapping, the “first inferred calendar entry for an inferred event” is a
calendar entry for an event that the user has scheduled in view of a
scheduling pattern. Ans. 6 (citing Chakra ¶ 31). Claim 1 requires warning
the user of a potential conflict between the first inferred calendar entry and a
Appeal 2019-006113
Application 14/270,585

6
user appointment. Claim 1 further requires modifying the first inferred
calendar entry based upon feedback provided by the user in response to that
warning. The Examiner has not shown a conflict to be between “a user
appointment for the first user and the first inferred calendar entry,” as
claimed. Instead, the Examiner maps the “potential conflict” to Chakra’s
conflict between “previously scheduled or newly scheduled events” and the
scheduling pattern. Ans. 7–8 (citing inter alia Chakra ¶ 38, which compares
events to the scheduling pattern). But, the Examiner has already accounted
for this conflict in the Examiner’s finding that the “inferred calendar entry”
is an event that the user has scheduled in view of the scheduling pattern.
Thus, any potential conflict has been accounted for as part of the user’s
scheduling of an event in view of the scheduling pattern. As argued by
Petitioner, Chakra does not teach further evaluation of conflicts once the
user has scheduled an event in view of the scheduling pattern.
Consequently, we are persuaded by Petitioner’s argument of error in the
Examiner’s rejection of claim 1.
The Examiner also has relied upon this reasoning in rejecting
dependent claims 2–12, independent claim 14, and its dependent claims 15,
16, and 25. Claims 2–3, 5, 7–12, 14, and 25 are rejected on the same
grounds as claim 1, and therefore those rejections suffer the same infirmities.
Claims 4, 6, 15, and 16 are rejected over the same base combination of
Chakra and Bowers in view of Wilkerson. The rejection of those claims
suffers from the same infirmities as the rejection of claim 1; moreover, the
Examiner does not explain how Wilkerson supplies the teachings absent
from the base combination. Accordingly, we reverse the Examiner’s
rejection of claims 1–12, 14–16, and 25.
Appeal 2019-006113
Application 14/270,585

7
Appellant states that independent claim 21 recites similar limitations,
and is patentable for similar reasons, as argued for claim 1. Appeal Br. 16.
However, claim 21 does not recite “modifying the first inferred calendar
entry based on the user feedback,” which we determined that the Examiner’s
combination of references did not teach for claim 1. Therefore, the
argument based upon that limitation, persuasive for claim 1, is not
persuasive to show error in claim 21. Claim 21 recites:
A computer storage media comprising instructions that, when
executed, perform a method for facilitating appointment
scheduling based upon conflict detection, comprising:
generating a first inferred calendar entry for an inferred event
associated with a first user inferred behavior pattern from a set
of user signals for a first user, wherein the set of user signals
does not include an explicit calendar entry defined by the first
user;
evaluating a second set of user signals from a second user to
generate a second user inferred behavior pattern;
generating a second inferred calendar entry indicating an
inferred event based on the first user inferred behavior pattern;
evaluating the first user inferred behavior pattern and the
second user inferred behavior pattern to identify a time for a
user appointment, wherein the identified time does not conflict
with the first inferred calendar entry and the second inferred
calendar entry; and
providing an appointment time suggestion based on the
identified time.
Appeal Br. 19.
We turn to Appellant’s other arguments. Appellant argues that the
Examiner errs in finding Chakra to describe an event scheduled by a user
that is based on previous behavior patterns of a user. Reply Br. 4. Appellant
argues that Chakra instead teaches that a user may schedule events according
Appeal 2019-006113
Application 14/270,585

8
to a first or second scheduling pattern, and “necessarily tracks a user’s
scheduled events to derive the disclosed scheduling patterns.” Id. Appellant
argues that Chakra, therefore, bases its scheduling pattern on prior calendar
events, and does not teach an “inferred behavior pattern . . . [that] does not
include an explicit calendar entry defined by the first user.” Id. at 4–5.
We are not persuaded by Appellant’s argument solely against Chakra.
The Examiner’s rejection of claim 21 relies on Bowers, not Chakra, for
teaching “wherein the set of user signals does not include an explicit
calendar entry defined by the first user,” and that “Bowers also teaches
wherein the set of user signals does not include an explicit calendar entry
defined by the first user.” Final Act. 15 (emphasis omitted). The Examiner
relies on Bowers’ description of a triggering event, such as a location of a
device, to instruct a computer to perform an action such as retrieving
calendar appointments. Id. at 16 (citing Bowers ¶ 25).
Appellant also argues that Bowers, by itself, does not teach generating
a first inferred calendar entry for an inferred event associated with a first
inferred user behavior pattern. Appeal Br. 10–12; Reply Br. 5–6. However,
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). Even if Chakra “necessarily tracks a
user’s scheduled events to derive [its] scheduling patterns,” an assertion
lacking detailed explanation or explicit support in Chakra, Bowers relies
upon location data for its user information. Bowers ¶ 25. Appellant’s
arguments against the separate teachings of Chakra and Bowers are not
persuasive to show error in the combination of Chakra and Bowers to teach
Appeal 2019-006113
Application 14/270,585

9
or suggest the claimed generating a first inferred calendar entry for an
inferred event associated with a first inferred user behavior pattern.
Appellant further argues that the Examiner has not shown sufficient
motivation to combine Chakra and Bowers. Reply Br. 6. Appellant argues
that the Examiner provides only conclusory statements in finding that
including the triggering events of Bowers would have “achieved an efficient
system and method of monitoring user activities” and enabled a “computing
device to generate events . . . for the user based on user behavior patterns . . .
in order to efficiently anticipate and/or predict user actions based on user
scheduling patterns.” Id. (citing Final Act. 7, Ans. 12.). Appellant further
argues that Bowers is “unrelated to calendaring” and does not describe a
calendar appointment being made. Id. at 6–7.
We are not persuaded. As acknowledged by Appellant, the Examiner
has identified some advantage in combining the relied-upon teachings of
Bowers with those of Chakra. Appellant has not explained why those
advantages are insufficient to provide motivation, beyond mere allegations
of “conclusory statements” and pointing out what the references teach.
Appellant’s argument against the combination of Bowers and Chakra
because Bowers is “unrelated to calendaring” are not persuasive, because as
discussed, Chakra, not Bowers, is relied upon for calendaring features.
Supra at 8. Further, as admitted by Appellant, “Bowers is similar to Chakra
in that it teaches the identification and evaluation of general user behavior
patterns.” Appeal Br. 6, 7 and 11.
Accordingly, we are not persuaded of error in claim 21. For the same
reasons, we are not persuaded of error in claim 24, for which Appellant
relies upon the same arguments and the Examiner relies upon the same
Appeal 2019-006113
Application 14/270,585

10
combination of applied references. Nor are we persuaded of error in the
Examiner’s rejection of claim 22, for which Appellant relies upon the same
arguments and the Examiner relies upon the same base combination of
Chakra and Bowers, further in view of Wilkerson. Consequently, we are not
persuaded of error in claims 21, 22, and 24, and sustain the Examiner’s
rejection of those claims.
Dependent claim 23 contains the limitation, “modifying at least one of
the first inferred calendar entry and the second inferred calendar entry based
on the user feedback.” As discussed supra, we do not agree with the
Examiner’s reliance on Chakra for teaching that limitation. Accordingly, we
are persuaded of error in claim 23, and we reverse the Examiner’s rejection
of that claim.

DECISION
For the above-described reasons, we reverse the Examiner’s rejection
of claims 1–12, 14–16, 23 and 25 as being obvious over the applied
references under 35 U.S.C. § 103, and we affirm the Examiner’s rejection of
claims 21, 22 and 24 as being obvious over the applied references under 35
U.S.C. § 103.
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)(iv).

Appeal 2019-006113
Application 14/270,585

11
SUMMARY
In summary:

Claims
Rejected
35 U.S.C. § Reference(s)/Basis Affirmed Reversed
1–3, 5,
7–12, 14,
21, 23–
25
103 Chakra, Bowers 21, 24 1–3, 5,
7–12, 14,
23, 25
4, 6, 15,
16, 22
103 Chakra, Bowers, Wilkerson 22 4, 6, 15,
16
Overall
Outcome
21, 22, 24 1–12,
14–16,
23, 25

AFFIRMED IN PART