Ex Parte Marston

Patent Trial and Appeal BoardDec 13, 2012

11094851 (P.T.A.B. Dec. 13, 2012)

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. 11/094,851 03/31/2005 David Marston LOT920050016US1 (092) 8529 46321 7590 12/13/2012 CAREY, RODRIGUEZ, GREENBERG & O''KEEFE, LLP STEVEN M. GREENBERG 950 PENINSULA CORPORATE CIRCLE SUITE 2022 BOCA RATON, FL 33487 EXAMINER MILLER, ALAN S ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 3624 MAIL DATE DELIVERY MODE 12/13/2012 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 1 ___________ 2 3 BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD 4 ___________ 5 6 Ex parte DAVID MARSTON 7 ___________ 8 9 Appeal 2011-003000 10 Application 11/094,851 11 Technology Center 3600 12 ___________ 13 14 15 Before ANTON W. FETTING, JOSEPH A. FISCHETTI, and 16 BIBHU R. MOHANTY, Administrative Patent Judges. 17 FETTING, Administrative Patent Judge. 18 DECISION ON APPEAL 19 Appeal 2011-003000 Application 11/094,851 2 STATEMENT OF THE CASE1 1 1 Our decision will make reference to the Appellant’s Appeal Brief (“App. Br.,” filed July 23, 2010) and Reply Brief (“Reply Br.,” filed November 27, 2010), and the Examiner’s Answer (“Ans.,” mailed September 27, 2010). David Marston (Appellant) seeks review under 35 U.S.C. § 134 of a 2 final rejection of claims 1-7 and 16-23, the only claims pending in the 3 application on appeal. We have jurisdiction over the appeal pursuant to 4 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). 5 The Appellant invented a way of scheduling meetings in a 6 collaborative computing environment (Specification para. [0001]). 7 An understanding of the invention can be derived from a reading of 8 exemplary claim 1, which is reproduced below [bracketed matter and some 9 paragraphing added]. 10 1. A method 11 for scheduling subsidiary meeting locations 12 for a meeting 13 in a collaborative environment, 14 the method comprising the steps of: 15 [1] sending a meeting invitation 16 to a selection of invitees 17 in the collaborative environment 18 for at least one primary location; 19 [2] processing 20 within a meeting host executing in a computer 21 system, 22 both complete acceptances and declinations to said 23 meeting invitation 24 from individual ones of said invitees 25 Appeal 2011-003000 Application 11/094,851 3 for said primary location, 1 and also 2 partial acceptances to said meeting invitation 3 from a set of said invitees in said selection; 4 [3] determining 5 within the meeting host 6 for said partial acceptances 7 an alternative location 8 to said primary location 9 which has not already been designated as an 10 acceptable subsidiary location; 11 and, 12 [4] responsive to a threshold value being exceeded 13 based upon a number of invitees 14 in said set of invitees 15 designating said alternative location, 16 designating said alternative location 17 as an acceptable subsidiary location 18 and 19 processing acceptances 20 for said set of invitees. 21 The Examiner relies upon the following prior art: 22 Zhang US 6,016,478 Jan. 18, 2000 Doss US 2004/0093290 Al May 13, 2004 Claims 1-7 and 16-23 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as 23 unpatentable over Zhang and Doss. 24 Appeal 2011-003000 Application 11/094,851 4 ISSUES 1 The issue of obviousness turns primarily on whether the 2 characterization of meeting locations in the claims as alternative or 3 subsidiary are to be afforded patentable weight, and if so, whether the 4 Examiner’s use of those terms is reasonable. 5 FACTS PERTINENT TO THE ISSUES 6 The following enumerated Findings of Fact (FF) are believed to be 7 supported by a preponderance of the evidence. 8 Facts Related to Claim Construction 9 01. The disclosure contains no lexicographic definition of 10 “subsidiary location.” 11 Facts Related to the Prior Art 12 Zhang 13 02. Zhang is directed to managing and scheduling time-based 14 information for multiple individuals located at different locations. 15 Zhang 1:17-18. 16 Doss 17 03. Doss is directed to providing: improved techniques for 18 performing free-time searches of calendar availability information 19 by considering factors beyond availability of free-time segments 20 on a user's calendar; improved scheduling techniques; and 21 improved techniques for analyzing electronic calendar entries and 22 associated calendar data. Doss paras. [0018]-[0021]. 23 Appeal 2011-003000 Application 11/094,851 5 04. A database records user preferences or user-specific 1 constraints/policies. The user may define additional locations, 2 such as his home or office, and may define preferences and 3 constraints for those locations. For example, Fred may define his 4 office as a meeting location, and may specify constraints such as 5 how many people can be accommodated for meetings in this 6 office, etc. Optionally, technology-related information such as 7 device availability or connectivity information may be specified 8 for each user-added location. Travel time from a user-added 9 location to one or more of the locations defined in the location 10 database may be statically specified, or travel time may be 11 estimated. Doss paras [0058]-[0059. 12 05. At Doss’ Block 920, the office location is determined for all 13 meeting invitees whose in-person participation is required at this 14 meeting. Block 930 then determines a preferred meeting location 15 based on where the offices are and one or more other selection 16 criteria. Examples of criteria that may be used for selecting a 17 preferred location include the following: minimize the number of 18 users who will have to travel; find a central location where travel 19 distance, on average, will be minimized; minimize the travel 20 distance for one or more selected participants; and so forth. Any 21 special meeting facilities that have been requested are also 22 considered. Selecting a facility comprises accessing a list of 23 meeting facilities that (1) are available during the time frame in 24 which the meeting is to be scheduled, (2) meet the selection 25 criteria requirements, and (3) have sufficient capacity for the 26 Appeal 2011-003000 Application 11/094,851 6 number of potential in-person invitees. If multiple locations 1 satisfy these requirements, then the choices are preferably 2 displayed to the person who is scheduling the meeting, so that a 3 single location can be selected. Alternatively, the free-time search 4 may be conducted for each suitable location by iterating through 5 the search process for each candidate location. Doss FIGS. 10-11 6 represent the search process when the person scheduling the 7 meeting has not pre-selected a specific location and has not 8 selected a location from the recommendation process in FIG. 9 9 (and Block 1000 is therefore reached following a negative result at 10 Block 910). Block 1000 begins the process by obtaining the list 11 of meeting invitees whose in-person participation is required. A 12 list of candidate locations is then created in Block 1010. In 13 preferred embodiments, the candidate locations may be selected 14 by compiling a list of (1) the office locations for each invitee 15 whose in-person presence is required; (2) all locations for which 16 calendar entries are already scheduled for those people, for the 17 time frame in which the meeting is to be scheduled; and/or (3) 18 locations central to these in-person participant locations. Thus, 19 consideration is given to where the invitees will be on the day of 20 the meeting, to increase the likelihood of finding a meeting time 21 and location. Alternatively, the candidate locations may be 22 selected in an implementation-specific manner (e.g., using a list of 23 site-specific preferred locations or other criteria). Block 1020 24 then chooses one of the candidate locations which has not yet been 25 processed. Block 1030 performs the context-sensitive free-time 26 Appeal 2011-003000 Application 11/094,851 7 search process for this candidate location, using the logic of FIGS. 1 3-7. The results of the search are then saved (Block 1040), and 2 Block 1050 checks to see if there are any other candidate locations 3 to be evaluated. If there are, then control returns to Block 1020 to 4 select the next candidate. Otherwise, processing continues at 5 Block 1060 where the results from evaluating each candidate 6 location are combined, and processing then continues at Block 7 1100 of FIG. 11. Doss paras. [0137]-[0140]. 8 ANALYSIS 9 We are not persuaded by the Appellant’s argument that 10 [t]he claim term "alternative location" within the context of 11 claims 1, 16 and 17 themselves, is a location that is alternative 12 to a primary location. By comparison, the claim term 13 "subsidiary location" should have been construed as an 14 auxiliary or supplemental location in addition to the primary 15 location according the term "subsidiary" its dictionary meaning 16 of "auxiliary" or "supplemental". 17 18 Appeal Br. 7-8. Neither of these terms are lexicographically defined by 19 Appellant and the Examiner provided reasonable, albeit broad constructions 20 of the terms. The Examiner found that unselected candidate locations were 21 alternatives. Ans. 5. We agree that unselected choices from which a 22 selection is to be made provide alternatives for consideration. The Examiner 23 found that locations that are among those indicated in pre-formed selection 24 criteria are subsidiary to the available selections in that they have additional 25 information that is to be considered. Ans. 6. 26 Beyond this, we find that the claim simply schedules meeting 27 locations which there is no disagreement Doss does. The characterization of 28 Appeal 2011-003000 Application 11/094,851 8 such locations as primary, alternative, or subsidiary has no functional 1 relationships within the claims, and as such their interpretation is susceptible 2 only to the human mind and so cannot distinguish over the art. See In re 3 Ngai, 367 F.3d 1336, 1339 (Fed. Cir. 2004). 4 CONCLUSIONS OF LAW 5 The rejection of claims 1-7 and 16-23 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as 6 unpatentable over Zhang and Doss is proper. 7 DECISION 8 The rejection of claims 1-7 and 16-23 is affirmed. 9 No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with 10 this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a). See 37 C.F.R. 11 § 1.136(a)(1)(iv) (2011). 12 13 AFFIRMED 14 15 16 17 Klh 18