Ex Parte Barlow et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Oct 31, 2016

13724104 (P.T.A.B. Oct. 31, 2016)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
131724,104 12/21/2012 W. CALEB BARLOW
52021 7590 11/02/2016
Cuenot, Forsythe & Kim, LLC
20283 State Road 7
Ste. 300
Boca Raton, FL 33498
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
ATTORNEY DOCKET NO. CONFIRMATION NO.
CAM92012007 4US l_ 8150-0299 9701
EXAMINER
HOANG, HAU HAI
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2167
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
11/02/2016 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):
ibmptomail@iplawpro.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte W. CALEB BARLOW, JAMES E. CHRISTENSEN, DAVID S.
MARSHAK, ANDREW L. SCHIRMER, and TRACEE L. WOLF
Appeal2015-007945
Application 13/724, 104
Technology Center 2100
Before ST. JOHN COURTENAY III, JOHN A. EVANS, and
STEVEN M. AMUNDSON, Administrative Patent Judges.
EV ANS, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
Appellants 1 seek our review under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) of the
Examiner's Final Rejection of Claims 11-25, which are all of the pending
claims. Claims Appendix. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
1 The Appeal Brief identifies International Business Machines Corporation,
as the real party in interest. App. Br. 3.
Appeal2015-007945
Application 13/724, 104
We AFFIRM.2
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
The claims relate to systems and methods for the management of data
items representing intended future conversations. See Abstract. 3
INVENTION
Claims 11 and 20 are independent.4 The claims have not been argued
separately and therefore stand or fall together. 37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(l)(iv).
An understanding of the invention can be derived from a reading of
representative Claim 11 (see App. Br. 23), which is reproduced below with
some formatting added:
11. A system comprising:
a processor programmed to initiate executable operations
comprising: receiving a plurality of first inputs from a first
user, each first input being related to a respective intended
2 Rather than reiterate the arguments of Appellants and the Examiner, we
refer to the Appeal Brief (filed Apr. 16, 2015, "App. Br."), the Reply Brief
(filed Aug. 28, 2015, "Reply Br."), the Examiner's Answer (mailed July 1,
2015, "Ans."), the Final Action (mailed Nov. 18, 2014, "Final Act."), and
the Specification (filed Dec. 21, 2012, "Spec.") for their respective details.
3 "[F]amiliarity with the background of this case is assumed and presented
herein only to the extent necessary to provide context for the analysis that
follows." See U.S. Ethernet Innovations, LLC v. Acer, Inc., 2015-1640,
2015-1641, 2016 WL 1622309, at *1 n.1 (Fed. Cir. April 25, 2016).
4 Regarding the "the computer program product comprising a computer-
readable storage medium" recited in the preamble of independent claim 20,
we note the definition in the Specification (i-f 13) ("The term computer-
readable storage medium means to a non-transitory storage medium.").
2
Appeal2015-007945
Application 13/724, 104
future conversation, each first input creating at least one data
item representing the respective intended future conversation;
receiving at least one attribute for each of the plurality of
intended future conversations associated with each first input,
the at least one attribute indicating a relationship or importance
to the first user of a participant invited to a corresponding
intended future conversation;
responsive to receiving at least one attribute for each of the
plurality of the intended future conversations associated with
each first input, a conversation module executed by the
processor automatically ranking the plurality of intended future
conversations associated with each first input in a particular
order based on at least one of the received attributes indicating
the relationship or importance to the first user of the participant
invited to the corresponding intended future conversation; and
generating a listing of the intended future conversations that is
based on the ranking.
References and Re} ections
The Examiner relies upon the prior art as follows:
Adams, et al., US 8,429,292 B2 Filed Aug. 1, 2006
O'Sullivan, et al., US 2009/0055236 Al Feb.26,2009
Coulomb, et al., US 2009/0217176 Al Aug.27,2009
1. Claims 11-13, 16-21, and 23-25 stand rejected under pre-AIA 35
U.S.C. §103(a) as obvious over Coulomb and O'Sullivan. Final Act.
2-16.
2. Claims 14, 15, and 22 stand rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. § 103(a)
as obvious over Coulomb, O'Sullivan, and Adams. Final Act. 16-19.
3
Appeal2015-007945
Application 13/724, 104
ANALYSIS
We have reviewed the rejections of Claims 11-25 in light of
Appellants' arguments that the Examiner erred. We have considered in this
decision only those arguments Appellants actually raised in the Briefs. Any
other arguments which Appellants could have made but chose not to make in
the Briefs are deemed to be waived. See 37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(l)(iv). We
are not persuaded that Appellants identify reversible error. Upon
consideration of the arguments presented in the Appeal Brief and Reply
Brief, we agree with the Examiner that all the pending claims are
unpatentable over the cited combination of references. We adopt as our own
the findings and reasons set forth in the rejection from which this appeal is
taken and in the Examiner's Answer. We provide the following explanation
to highlight and address specific arguments and findings primarily for
emphasis. We consider Appellants' arguments seriatim, as they are
presented in the Appeal Brief, pages 13-22.
CLAIMS 11-25: OBVIOUSNESS OVER COULOMB, O'SULLIVAN, AND ADAMS.
Appellants argues all claims as a group and specifically argue Claim
11. App.Br.21,22.
Whether Coulomb's "criteria" teach the claimed "attribute."
Independent Claim 11 recites, inter alia, "receiving at least one
attribute for each of the plurality of intended future conversations associated
with each first input." Independent Claim 20 contains a substantially
4
Appeal2015-007945
Application 13/724, 104
identical recitation. Coulomb teaches "[a] meeting invitation and a meeting
are defined with a number of criteria such as a meeting name." Coulomb, ,-r
18. The Examiner finds Coulomb's "criteria" teach the claimed "attribute."
Final Act. 3.
Appellants contend that the term "criteria," recited by Coulomb, is
distinct from the term "attribute," recited in the claims. App. Br. 14.
Appellants argue a criterion is "a standard on which a judgment or decision
may be based." Id. (citing http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary
/criteria). Appellants argue, in contrast, the claimed "attribute" is "an
inherent characteristic." Id. (citing http://www.merriam-webster.com/
dictionary/attribute). Because, according to the dictionary, the plain
meaning of the term "criteria" differs from the plain meaning of the term
"attribute," Appellants contend the cited passage of Coulomb does not
disclose the claimed "rece1vmg at least one attribute for each of the plurality
of intended future conversations associated with each first input." Id.
The Examiner finds Appellants' Specification defines the claimed
"attribute" as any property, characteristic, requirement or information
associated with an intended future conversation that provides context for the
conversation. Ans. 3 (citing Spec., ,-r 31 ). The Examiner finds that Coulomb
discloses that each meeting has an associated meeting name, meeting
invitation parent number, meeting subject, start and an end time, location,
chairman, invitee, ... , and priority number, which the Examiner finds are
meeting attributes. Id. at 4.
5
Appeal2015-007945
Application 13/724, 104
Appellants do not reply to this aspect of the Examiner's findings, and
Appellants' arguments are not persuasive of error.
Whether 0 'Sullivan teaches an "attribute" indicating importance.
The Examiner finds 0' Sullivan teaches a weighting factor indicating
the likelihood the invitee will attend the meeting which the Examiner
equates to the claimed attribute indicating a relationship or importance to the
first user of a participant invited to the meeting. See Final Act. 4--5.
Appellants contend the likelihood that an invitee attend the meeting is
not equivalent to the claimed "relationship or importance to the first user of
a participant." App. Br. 17.
The Examiner finds that O'Sullivan teaches that when user 46 accepts
an invitation to Team Status meeting, a weighting factor is calculated. This
weighting factor is associated with user 46 and the Team Status Meeting.
The ivioderator makes decisions that are based on this weighting factor. For
instance, if user 46 is a critical or important person and the calculated
weighting factor is low, moderators may decide to reschedule the meeting.
The weighting factor clearly is associated with the user and the meeting.
The value of the weighting factor shows a relationship between the user and
the meeting. If the value of the weighting factor is high, the probability of
the user attending the meeting is high, and vice versa. Furthermore, the
meeting may be rescheduled to another time if the weighting factor is low
along with position of user 46. Ans. 8.
Appellants contend the judgment whether user 46 is a "critical
attendee" is made by a meeting moderator. Thus, O'Sullivan's "attendance
6
Appeal2015-007945
Application 13/724, 104
weighting factor" does not indicate whether the user is a "critical attendee."
Reply Br. 2-3.
On this record, we are not persuaded of error. For the reasons
discussed above, we find a preponderance of the evidence supports the
Examiner's underlying factual finding that O'Sullivan's "attendance
weighting factor" is used to judge whether the user is critical. Accordingly,
we are not persuaded of error regarding the Examiner's ultimate legal
conclusion of obviousness.
DECISION
The rejection of Claims 11-25 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 is AFFIRMED.
AFFIRMED
7