ServiceNow, Inc.

Patent Trials and Appeals Board

Mar 25, 2022

2021001253 (P.T.A.B. Mar. 25, 2022)

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. 15/492,572 04/20/2017 Troy Azmoon SERV:0048 (SRV404) 7825 145139 7590 03/25/2022 ServiceNow c/o Fletcher Yoder PC P.O. Box 692289 Houston, TX 77269 EXAMINER NUNEZ, JORDANY ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 2171 NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE 03/25/2022 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): docket@fyiplaw.com hill@fyiplaw.com PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07) UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE ____________ BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD ____________ Ex parte TROY AZMOON and FREDERIC B. LUDDY ____________ Appeal 2021-001253 Application 15/492,572 Technology Center 2100 ____________ Before JOHN A. EVANS, JOYCE CRAIG, and MATTHEW J. McNEILL, Administrative Patent Judges. EVANS, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL Appellant1 seeks our review under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Examiner’s final rejection of Claims 1-9 and 11-25, all pending claims. App. Br. 2. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). We REVERSE.2 1 Appellant states the real party in interest is SERVICENOW, INC. App. Br. 1. 2 Rather than reiterate the arguments of the Appellant and the Examiner, we refer to the Appeal Brief (filed August 7, 2020, “App. Br.”), the Reply Brief (filed December 9, 2020, “Reply Br.”), the Examiner’s Answer (mailed October 26, 2020, “Ans.”), the Final Action (mailed March 6, 2020, “Final Act.”), the Advisory Action (mailed May 21, 2020, “Advisory”), and the Appeal 2021-001253 Application 15/492,572 2 STATEMENT OF THE CASE The claims relate to systems and methods for displaying information related to a task. See Claims. INVENTION Claims 1 and 13 are independent. An understanding of the invention can be derived from a reading of illustrative Claim 1, which is reproduced below: 1. A system for displaying information related to a task, comprising: a memory; a processor configured to execute instructions stored within the memory; a network interface configured to communicatively couple the processor to a network; a task database comprising a plurality of task records; a display operably coupled to the processor, and based at least in part on the instructions executed by the processor, the display being configured to: display a graphical user interface comprising: a first region to display the plurality of task records, wherein each task record of the plurality of task records is associated with a respective corresponding chat timeline between a customer and an agent; a second region to display one of the corresponding chat timelines; and a third region to display task-related information; Specification (filed April 20, 2017, “Spec.”) for their respective details. Appeal 2021-001253 Application 15/492,572 3 receive selection of a first task record of the plurality of task records, wherein the first task record is associated with a first chat timeline of the corresponding chat timelines; populate the second region with the first chat timeline associated with the first task record; and populate the third region with the task-related information that comprises textual data, attached file information associated with the first task record, a status indicator, and links to documentation determined to be relevant based on the first chat timeline, wherein the task-related information is configured to be dragged from the third region to the second region, wherein dragging the task-related information into the second region results in the task-related information appearing in the second region. Prior Art Name3 Reference Date Gibson US 2003/0187672 A1 Oct. 2, 2003 Bellini, III US 8,903,933 B1 Dec. 2, 2014 Nelson US 2016/0337276 A1 Nov. 17, 206 Sakai US 2016/0350059 A1 Dec. 1, 2016 Shah US 2017/0031536 A1 Feb. 2, 2017 REJECTIONS4 AT ISSUE 1. Claims 1-9, 11-16, 18-21, 23, and 24 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as obvious over Nelson, Gibson, and Sakai. Final Act. 2-7. 2. Claims 17 and 22 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as obvious over Nelson, Gibson, Sakai, and Bellini. Final Act. 7-8. 3 All citations herein to the references are by reference to the first named inventor/author only. 4 The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA. Final Act. 2. Appeal 2021-001253 Application 15/492,572 4 3. Claim 25 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as obvious over Nelson, Gibson, Sakai, and Shah. Final Act. 8-9. 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), cited with approval in In re Jung, 637 F.3d 1356, 1365 (Fed. Cir. 2011) (“[I]t has long been the Board’s practice to require an applicant to identify the alleged error in the examiner’s rejections.”). We have considered in this decision only those arguments Appellant actually raised in the Briefs. Any other arguments which Appellant could have made but chose not to make in the Briefs are deemed to be forfeit. See 37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(1)(iv) (2019). After considering the evidence presented in this Appeal and each of Appellant’s arguments, we are persuaded that Appellant identifies reversible error. Thus, we reverse the Examiner’s rejections. We add the following primarily for emphasis. CLAIMS 1-9, 11-16, 18-21, 23, AND 24: OBVIOUSNESS OVER NELSON, GIBSON, AND SAKAI. Independent Claim 1 recites, inter alia: “ populate the third region with the task-related information that comprises textual data, attached file information associated with the first task record, a status indicator, and links to documentation determined to be relevant based on the first chat timeline. Independent Claim 1. Appeal Br. 23. Independent claim 13 recites commensurate limitations. Appeal 2021-001253 Application 15/492,572 5 Non-functional descriptive material. The Examiner finds the claimed invention includes a display which displays a graphical user interface comprising first, second, and third regions, but what is displayed in the claimed regions is non-functional, descriptive material. Advisory 1. The Examiner finds non-functional, descriptive material will not distinguish a claimed invention from the prior art in terms of patentability, i.e., is not given patentable weight. Id. (citing In re Gulack, 703 F.2d 1381, 1385 (Fed. Cir. 1983); In re Lowry, 32 F.3d 1579 (Fed. Cir. 1994)). The Examiner finds Nelson teaches a GUI having the claimed three regions and that the differences between the instant invention and Nelson are only found in the nonfunctional descriptive material which does not alter how the display functions. Id. Appellant contends a “three-region GUI provides ‘efficient and seamless ways of interacting with business systems, particularly [for] task based systems’” that use a chat-based user interface “‘includ[ing] features related to linking information, messaging, and recordkeeping.’” Appeal Br. 11. Appellant argues the claimed first, second, and third regions provide improved access to information relating to a chat-interaction with a business system, and therefore, perform some function with respect to the claimed “processor” and “display.” Id. The Examiner’s Answer agrees with Appellant so as to give patentable weight to the recited first, second, and third regions. Ans. 4. However, immediately after agreeing that the claimed first, second, and third regions are afforded patentable weight, the Examiner finds: the “Appellant seems to try [to] patentably distinguish the cited prior art from the instant invention by the mere recitation of nonfunctional, descriptive material within the claimed invention.” Ans. 7. The Examiner’s vacillation as to Appeal 2021-001253 Application 15/492,572 6 whether certain recitations of independent Claims 1 and 13 represent “nonfunctional, descriptive material,” or are to be afforded patentable weight, renders the prima facie case inchoate and incoherent. We will not sustain such a case. Task-related information. The Examiner finds Nelson teaches a GUI having a third region which is populated with task-related information that comprises textual data, attached file information associated with the first task record, and a status indicator. Final Act. 3 (Citing Nelson, Fig. 6, ¶ 33). Appellant contends Nelson teaches a search GUI having a search field into which a user may enter a search query. Appeal Br. 13. Appellant argues that Nelson fails to teach populating the GUI with “‘textual data, attached file information associated with the first task record, a status indicator, and links to documentation,’ as recited by independent claims 1 and 13.” Id. The Examiner finds one cannot show nonobviousness by attacking references individually where the rejections are based on combinations of references. Ans. 6. The Examiner finds the rejection was made in view of Nelson, Gibson, and Sakai, but because Appellant does not address this combination Appellant’s argument is moot. Ans. 7. The Examiner finds the “Advisory Action . . . agreed that Nelson alone did not teach the invention as a whole, instead, the said Advisory Action clearly concluded it is the combination (emphasis added) of Nelson, Gibson, and Sakai that continues render obvious the instant invention.” Ans. 7. The Advisory found: “Nelson teaches the claimed three regions in Nelson’s disclosed graphical user interface, as explained in the previous Office Action.” Advisory 1. Nor does the Advisory rely on either, or both, Appeal 2021-001253 Application 15/492,572 7 Gibson or Sakai, to teach the claimed regions. Thus, contrary to the Examiner, the prima facie case relies on Nelson, alone, to teach the three, claimed regions. In agreement with Appellant, we find no disclosure in Paragraph 33 of Nelson that teaches, or suggests, populating three regions of a GUI with information. Three regions. In finding Nelson teaches, or suggests, populating three regions of a GUI with information, the Examiner finds: “[i]t is noted that the three regions are not claimed as being simultaneously displayed.” Advisory 1. Based upon this interpretation, the Examiner cites Nelson, Fig. 6, as teaching this limitation. However, Nelson teaches a GUI having only a first region. See Nelson, Fig. 6. Appellant contends: “the first, second, and third regions improve, inter alia, interaction with a business system via a chat including information related to the chat . . . and therefore, perform some function with respect to the product to which it is associated (e.g., ‘the processor’ and/or the ‘display’ of the present claims).” Appeal Br. 11. Claim 1 (and commensurately Claim 13) recites, inter alia: “a display operably coupled to the processor . . . the display being configured to: display a graphical user interface comprising: [the claimed three regions]. We find the claims are best interpreted as requiring the simultaneous display of the claimed three regions. In view of the foregoing, we decline to sustain the rejection of Claims 1-9, 11-16, 18-21, 23, and 24. CLAIMS 17 AND 22: OBVIOUSNESS OVER NELSON, GIBSON, SAKAI, AND BELLINI. Appeal 2021-001253 Application 15/492,572 8 The Examiner does not apply Bellini to teach the limitation disputed above. See Final Act. 7. In view of the foregoing, we decline to sustain the rejection of Claims 17 and 22. CLAIM 25: OBVIOUS OVER NELSON, GIBSON, SAKAI, AND SHAH. The Examiner does not apply Shah to teach the limitation disputed above. See Final Act. 8. In view of the foregoing, we decline to sustain the rejection of Claim 25. CONCLUSION In summary: Claim(s) Rejected 35 U.S.C. § Reference(s)/Basis Affirmed Reversed 1-9, 11- 16, 18-21, 23, 24 103 Nelson, Gibson, Sakai 1-9, 11- 16, 18-21, 23, 24 17, 22 103 Nelson, Gibson, Sakai, Bellini 17, 22 25 103 Nelson, Gibson, Sakai, Shah 25 Overall Outcome 1-9, 11- 25 REVERSED