Apple Inc.Download PDFPatent Trials and Appeals BoardMay 13, 20212020005855 (P.T.A.B. May. 13, 2021) Copy Citation 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. 14/500,978 09/29/2014 Tiffany S. Jon P22945US2/77770000363102 1606 150004 7590 05/13/2021 DENTONS US LLP - Apple 4655 Executive Dr Suite 700 San Diego, CA 92121 EXAMINER SINGLETARY, TYRONE E ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 3623 NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE 05/13/2021 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): dentons_PAIR@firsttofile.com patent.docket@dentons.com patents.us@dentons.com PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07) UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE ____________________ BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD ____________________ Ex parte TIFFANY S. JON and STEPHEN O. LEMAY __________________ Appeal 2020-005855 Application 14/500,978 Technology Center 3600 ____________________ Before BIBHU R. MOHANTY, JAMES P. CALVE, and CYNTHIA L. MURPHY, Administrative Patent Judges. CALVE, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL STATEMENT OF THE CASE Pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 134(a), Appellant1 appeals from the decision of the Examiner to reject claims 1, 3–11, 13, 14, 16–23, and 25–41, which are all of the pending claims.2 We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). We REVERSE. 1 “Appellant” refers to “applicant” as defined in 37 C.F.R. § 1.42. Appellant identifies Apple Inc. as the real party in interest. Appeal Br. 3. 2 Claims 2, 12, 15, and 24 are cancelled. Appeal Br. 42, 44, 45, 49 (Claims App.). Appeal 2020-005855 Application 14/500,978 2 CLAIMED SUBJECT MATTER The claimed electronic calendar appointment generation method and device allow users to create new appointments by entering information such as the title, time, and date of a new appointment into a text input field 2540 so the system can propose new appointments. Spec. 52–54, Figs. 25–27B. Appellant’s Figure 30 is reproduced below to illustrate this claimed subject matter. Appellant’s Figure 30 above illustrates how a new appointment can be generated with suggested appointments. Selecting new appointment creation item 2915 displays a fillable text field 3040 where a user can enter the name of an appointment and other details. Entering the text “Call” causes new appointments 3045–3055 to be proposed (and updated) based on the text input and a search of the user’s past calendar history. Spec. 61–63. Appeal 2020-005855 Application 14/500,978 3 Claims 1, 14, and 20 are independent and recite a method, a non- transitory machine readable medium, and a device. Representative claim 1 recites: 1. A method for automatically generating an appointment for an electronic calendar, the method comprising: displaying a text input field for creating a new appointment for the calendar; receiving a first portion of a text input in the text input field to create a new appointment for the calendar, wherein the first portion of the text input includes at least a part of a first appointment characteristic; displaying, in the text input field, the first portion of the text input; while receiving the first portion of the text input, analyzing a plurality of previous appointments stored for the calendar to identify one or more appointments that include the first appointment characteristic, wherein the one or more appointments that include the first appointment characteristic include: a first appointment on a first date that includes the first appointment characteristic, and a first new appointment characteristic that is different from the first appointment characteristic; displaying, based on the identified one or more appointments that include the first appointment characteristic, a new appointment proposal; receiving a second portion of the text input that is a continuation of the first portion of the text input in the text input field, wherein the second portion of the text input includes at least a part of a second appointment characteristic that is different from the first appointment characteristic; displaying, in the text input field, the second portion of the text input; while receiving the second portion of the text input, updating the analysis of the plurality of previous appointments stored for the calendar to identify updated one or more appointments that include the first appointment characteristic Appeal 2020-005855 Application 14/500,978 4 and the second appointment characteristic, wherein the one or more appointments that include the first appointment characteristic and the second appointment characteristic include: a second appointment on a second date that includes the first appointment characteristic and the second appointment characteristic, and a second new appointment characteristic that is different from the first appointment characteristic and the second appointment characteristic; and displaying, based on the updated analysis, an updated new appointment proposal that is on a third date different from the second date, wherein: the new appointment has at least one appointment characteristic other than the first appointment characteristic and the second appointment characteristic shared with the second appointment, and the at least one appointment characteristic other than the first appointment characteristic and the second appointment characteristic includes the second new appointment characteristic. Appeal Br. 41–42 (Claims App.). REJECTIONS Claims 1, 5, 13, 14, 17, 20, 25–27, 32–34, 37, 40, and 41 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as unpatentable over Fasen3 and Nathan.4 Claims 3, 4, 6–11, 16, 18, 19, 21–23, 28–31, 35, 36, 38, and 39 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as unpatentable over Fasen, Nathan, and Norton.5 3 US 2015/0347586 A1, published December 3, 2015 (“Fasen”). 4 US 2015/0058425 A1, published February 26, 2015 (“Nathan”). 5 US 2011/0184768 A1, published July 28, 2011 (“Norton”). Appeal 2020-005855 Application 14/500,978 5 ANALYSIS Claims 1, 5, 13, 14, 17, 20, 25–27, 32–34, 37, 40, and 41 Rejected over Fasen and Nathan Regarding independent claims 1, 14, and 20, the Examiner finds that Fasen displays a text input field to create a new appointment and receives a first portion of a text input in the text input field to create a new appointment for the calendar. The Examiner finds that the first portion includes a first appointment characteristic (e.g., time and date field 402-A in Figs. 4A, 4B), displays the first portion, and while receiving the first portion of text input, analyzes previous appointments stored for the calendar to identify one or more appointments that include the first appointment characteristic and a first new appointment characteristic different from the first appointment characteristic in related 430 and suggested 440 items of the peripheral view 420-A and receiving a second portion of the text input that is a continuation of the first portion of the text input in the text input field with a second appointment characteristic that is different from the first appointment characteristic, and updating the analysis of previous stored appointments to identify the updated appointments with the first and second appointment characteristic. Final Act. 4–6. The Examiner cites Nathan to teach a second appointment on a second date that has the first appointment characteristic and second appointment characteristic and a new appointment characteristic different from the first and second appointment characteristics. Id. at 6–7. The Examiner determines that it would have been obvious to modify Fasen with teachings of Nathan to have a second appointment and second date with first and second appointment characteristics to provide suggestions and alternatives during the setting up and managing of meetings. Id. at 7. Appeal 2020-005855 Application 14/500,978 6 Appellant argues that Fasen receives user inputs in different, distinct input areas rather than a single text input field as claimed. Appeal Br. 17– 19, 21. Appellant asserts that Fasen does not teach or suggest an input to a single text input field that comprises a first portion that is at least a part of a first appointment characteristic and a second portion that includes at least a part of a second appointment characteristic that is different from the first appointment characteristic. Id. at 19–21. Appellant also asserts that Fasen does not display a new appointment proposal while receiving a first portion of the text input or an updated new appointment proposal while receiving a second portion of the text input as claimed. Id. We agree. In contrast to the claimed calendar appointment, Fasen uses multiple input fields 401–404 to allow users to input text regarding the subject of an appointment (Event Description 401), the time and date 402, location 403, and invitees 404 (if any). Fasen ¶ 60. Fasen does not teach “a text input field for creating a new appointment of the calendar” as recited in claims 1, 14, and 20. See Appeal Br. 41, 44, 46 (Claims App.). To create a calendar appointment in Fasen, users input text into several, distinct fields 401–404. Here, the claims require that the first portion of the text input, and the second portion of the text input that is a continuation of the first portion are received and displayed in the same, single text input field. Id. at 41, 44–45, 46–47 (Claims App.). The Specification confirms that “a fillable text field 3040” is a single input field that receives a text string specifying a name and other details of an appointment (e.g., date, time, location). Spec. 53–54, 61– 63, Figs. 25–27B, 30–32. As a user enters a first and a second portion of the string text into the text input field 2540 or 3040, the application searches the user’s calendar to propose new appointments based on the text input. Id. Appeal 2020-005855 Application 14/500,978 7 Figure 4B of Fasen is reproduced below to illustrate the multiple text input fields of Fasen used to create a new appointment 400-A. Figure 4B of Fasen above illustrates how a user can schedule a new calendar appointment 400-A by entering text into a subject field 401-A of “Happy Hour,” a date and time field 402-A of “Friday, April 19, 2014 5:00 – 7:00 PM,” a location input field 403-A at “Earl’s in Bellevue” with a map location, and invited co-workers/invitees 404-A as “Doreen Fasen[,] Roshin Lal Ramesan[, and] Kate Everitt (Me).” Fasen ¶ 66. Entered text is used to identify related items 430 such as calendar conflicts 451 by searching a user’s calendar. Id. ¶ 67. Suggested events 440 are provided by searching information on social media, “liked” locations of a user, “likes” of invitees, public event calendars, and customer ratings. Id. ¶¶ 68–70. Appeal 2020-005855 Application 14/500,978 8 The Examiner takes the position that Fasen’s input field 402-A that receives time and date information for an appointment teaches “a text input field for creating a new appointment for a calendar” as claimed. See Final Act. 4–6; Ans. 3–4. However, even if input field 402-A can be considered “a text input field,” Fasen does not analyze previous calendar appointments to identify appointments that include the appointment characteristic of a first portion of text entered into field 402-A while receiving the first portion of the text input into input field 402-A as claimed. Nor does Fasen present new appointment proposals based on an analysis of stored calendar appointments using a first portion of text entered into input field 402-A as claimed. Fasen searches previous calendar appointments only to identify users’ calendar conflicts 451 (rather than to suggest new appointments as claimed). And, Fasen searches previous calendar appointments after a user enters first and second portions of text into input field 402-A (e.g., day, date, and time). Thus, Fasen does not analyze previous stored calendar appointments while receiving a first portion of the text input into input field 402-A as claimed. Fasen uses all portions of text entered into field 402-A, e.g., “Friday, April 19, 2014 5:00 – 7:00 PM” to search calendar appointments to identify a stored appointment that conflicts with that entered text, e.g., “Billy has soccer practice until 5:00 pm.” Fasen ¶¶ 4, 50, 58, 61, 64, 67, 72, Fig. 4B. Fasen uses all portions of text entered into field 402-A to identify calendar conflicts rather than to propose new appointments as claimed. A conflicting appointment is not a new appointment suggested by the calendar application as claimed. Even if it was, Fasen does not identify a scheduling conflict 451 using only a first portion of text such as only the date or the time without the other portion being inputted into field 402-A to identify a conflict. See id. Appeal 2020-005855 Application 14/500,978 9 Fasen does suggest new appointments 454. However, Fasen do so by using text input into the subject 401-A, time and date 402-A, location 403-A, and invitee 404-A data input fields and by accessing data feeds (not previous calendar appointments stored in a user’s calendar) to suggest events 454 that satisfy the title, date, time, location, and invitee data input into all text input fields 401–404 and various external data sources. Fasen ¶¶ 67, 68, Fig. 4B. Fasen’s calendar application provides a peripheral view 420-A of event-related information that can be surfaced dynamically as a user enters information into the multiple data input fields 401–404. Id. ¶ 60. However, the entirety of Fasen’s disclosure indicates that the calendar application does not suggest appointments until users input first and second portions of text into one or more input fields 401–404. For example, Fasen suggests a new event as Cocktail Hour at Redmond Art Gallery at 6:00 pm 454 (Fig. 4B). The “Cocktail Hour at Redmond Art Gallery” at 6:00 pm is suggested after text is entered into title field 401-A (i.e., “Happy Hour”), date and time field 402-A (i.e., “Friday, April 19, 2014 5:00–7:00 PM”), location field 403-A (i.e., “Earl’s in Bellevue”), and invitee field 404-A (i.e., “Doreen Fasen – Roshin Lal Ramesan – Kate Everitt (Me)”). This suggested event is not dynamically surfaced while only a first portion of time and date data is entered into field 402-A as claimed. Instead, data is entered into all fields 401-A to 404-A before the calendar application suggests a cocktail hour at the Redmond Art Gallery using this data and information on social media, “liked” locations of a user, “likes” of invitees, public event calendars, and customer ratings. Id. ¶¶ 66–70. This suggested event 454 is not based on appointments stored in a user’s calendar as claimed. Nor is it suggested as a user enters a first portion of text into data field 402-A as claimed. Appeal 2020-005855 Application 14/500,978 10 The Examiner’s reliance on Nathan to teach other features of the independent claims (Final Act. 7–8) does not cure the deficiencies of Fasen. Accordingly, we do not sustain the rejection of claims 1, 14, and 20 or their respective dependent claims 5, 13, 17, 25–27, 32–34, 37, 40, and 41. Claims 3, 4, 6–11, 16, 18, 19, 21–23, 28–31, 35, 36, 38, and 39 Rejected over Fasen, Nathan, and Norton The Examiner’s reliance on Norton to teach features of these claims in combination with Fasen and Nathan does not cure the deficiencies noted above as to claims 1, 14, and 20 from which these claims depend. See Appeal Br. 38. Thus, we do not sustain the rejection of these claims. DECISION SUMMARY In summary: Claim(s) Rejected 35 U.S.C. § Reference(s)/ Basis Affirmed Reversed 1, 5, 13, 14, 17, 20, 25–27, 32–34, 37, 40, 41 103 Fasen, Nathan 1, 5, 13, 14, 17, 20, 25–27, 32–34, 37, 40, 41 3, 4, 6–11, 16, 18, 19, 21–23, 28–31, 35, 36, 38, 39 103 Fasen, Nathan, Norton 3, 4, 6–11, 16, 18, 19, 21–23, 28–31, 35, 36, 38, 39 Overall Outcome 1, 3–11, 13, 14, 16–23, 25–41 REVERSED Copy with citationCopy as parenthetical citation