Ex Parte KWON

Patent Trial and Appeal BoardJul 27, 2015

11859585 (P.T.A.B. Jul. 27, 2015)

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. 11/859,585 09/21/2007 Min-Jeong KWON 1398-139 4954 66547 7590 07/27/2015 THE FARRELL LAW FIRM, P.C. 290 Broadhollow Road Suite 210E Melville, NY 11747 EXAMINER PATEL, NIMESH ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 2642 MAIL DATE DELIVERY MODE 07/27/2015 PAPER 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. PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07) UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE ____________________ BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD ____________________ Ex parte MIN-JEONG KWON ____________________ Appeal 2013-006613 Application 11/859,585 Technology Center 2600 ____________________ Before ROBERT E. NAPPI, LINZY T. McCARTNEY, and JESSICA C. KAISER, Administrative Patent Judges. McCARTNEY, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL Appellant appeals under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from a rejection of claims 1, 2, and 4–9. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). We AFFIRM. Appeal 2013-006613 Application 11/859,585 2 STATEMENT OF THE CASE Appellant’s invention relates “to a method of providing schedule information to [a] mobile terminal, through a call or a message to, participants by storing a list of the participants for the schedule in a schedule data.” Spec. 1:16–19. Claim 1 illustrates the claimed subject matter: 1. A method of providing schedule information for a mobile terminal, comprising: setting an event through an event setting screen; determining whether a function for setting participants’ information corresponding to the event is requested when the event is set by a user; displaying, if the function for setting participants’ information is requested, a participant’s information setting screen through a display unit of the mobile terminal, and setting and storing participants’ information corresponding to the event through the participants’ information setting screen, wherein the participants’ information comprises participants’ phone numbers; informing the user of the mobile terminal of the event at a scheduled alarm; determining whether a display of the participants’ information is requested after informing the user of the event; displaying, if display of the participants’ information is requested, the stored participants’ information through the display unit of the mobile terminal; selecting one of the displayed participants’ information; and transmitting a call using a phone number included in the selected participant’s information. Appeal 2013-006613 Application 11/859,585 3 REJECTION Claims 1, 2, and 4–9 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Scheuring (US 2002/0131565 A1; published Sept. 19, 2002), Arenburg (US 2008/0071868 A1; filed Sept. 20, 2006), and Lee (US 2003/0087668 A1; published May 8, 2003). ISSUE Did the Examiner erroneously conclude a combination of Scheuring, Arenburg, and Lee teaches or suggests “determining whether a function for setting participants’ information corresponding to the event is requested when the event is set by a user” and “displaying, if the function for setting participants’ information is requested, a participant’s information setting screen through a display unit of the mobile terminal . . . wherein the participants’ information comprises participants’ phone numbers” as recited in claim 1? ANALYSIS Appellant argues the cited portions of Scheuring merely disclose, among other things, setting priorities for meeting attendees, showing availability of invitees, and specifying event attributes, none of which teaches or suggests “determining whether a function for setting participants’ information corresponding to the event is requested when the event is set by a user, particularly in regards to participants’ information that comprises participants’ phone numbers” or “displaying, if the function for setting participants’ information is requested, a participant’s information setting screen.” See App. Br. 4–6; Reply Br. 1–3. Appellant contends the cited Appeal 2013-006613 Application 11/859,585 4 portions of Arenburg and Lee fail to address these deficiencies. See App Br. 6–7; Reply Br. 3–4. We disagree. As an initial matter, the Examiner found a combination of Scheuring, Arenburg, and Lee suggests the limitations at issue, see Final Act 2–8; Ans. 1–2,1 yet Appellant argues against the cited references individually, see App. Br. 3–7; Reply Br. 1–4. “[O]ne cannot show non- obviousness by attacking references individually where, as here, the rejections are based on combinations of references.” In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 426 (CCPA 1981). For this reason alone, we find Appellant’s arguments unpersuasive. In any event, we agree with the Examiner that a combination of Scheuring, Arenburg, and Lee discloses the disputed “determining” and “displaying” steps. See Final Act. 2–8; Ans. 1–2. The cited portions of Scheuring teach that a user can schedule an event such as a teleconference by inputting event information—including information regarding event invitees––in a series of graphical user interface (GUI) screens. See Final Act. 4–5 (citing Scheuring Figs. 6, 8; ¶¶ 81, 84). The exemplary GUI screens for scheduling an event include “Back,” “Cancel,” and “Next” buttons, presumably for traversing the GUI screens. See Scheuring Fig. 8. The cited portions of Scheuring also teach that users can input teleconference invitee information (e.g., invitee priority) during the teleconference scheduling process. See id. Fig. 6, ¶ 81. Because the cited portions of Scheuring suggest that users can select “Back” or “Next” buttons to reach a GUI screen for inputting teleconference 1 The Answer lacks page numbers. We refer to the Answer as if its pages were consecutively numbered starting with the first page. Appeal 2013-006613 Application 11/859,585 5 invitee information during a teleconference scheduling process, Scheuring teaches or suggests “determining whether a function for setting participants’ information corresponding to the event is requested when the event is set by the user” and “displaying if a function for setting participants’ information is requested, a participant’s information setting screen” as found by the Examiner. See Final Act. 2–8; Ans. 1–2. Appellant’s contention that Scheuring fails to teach or suggest the “wherein the participants’ information comprises participants’ phone numbers” aspect of the “displaying” limitation is unavailing because the Examiner found Lee, not Scheuring, suggests this part of the limitation. See App. Br. 4; Final Act. 7–8. Although Appellant generally asserts that Lee fails to remedy Scheuring’s alleged deficiencies, see App. Br. 7; Reply Br. 3–4, Appellant has not provided any persuasive evidence or argument that the Examiner’s findings and conclusions concerning Lee are erroneous. For the above reasons, we affirm the Examiner’s rejection of claim 1. Because Appellant fail to present separate, persuasive arguments for claims 2 and 4–9, see App. Br. 7, we also affirm the Examiner’s rejection of these claims.2 DECISION We affirm the Examiner’s rejection of claims 1, 2, and 4–9. No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a)(1)(iv). 2 Although we affirm the Examiner’s rejection for the reasons set forth above, we note Lee may also suggest the disputed limitations. See Lee Figs. 2, 3; ¶¶ 9, 23–24 Appeal 2013-006613 Application 11/859,585 6 AFFIRMED lv