Apple Inc.

Patent Trials and Appeals Board

May 13, 2021

2020005855 (P.T.A.B. May. 13, 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.
14/500,978 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