Ex Parte Protopapas et al

Patent Trial and Appeal BoardApr 27, 2016

13078355 (P.T.A.B. Apr. 27, 2016)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE 13/078,355 04/01/2011 28395 7590 04/29/2016 BROOKS KUSHMAN P,CJFG1L 1000 TOWN CENTER 22NDFLOOR SOUTHFIELD, MI 48075-1238 FIRST NAMED INVENTOR Maria Eugenia Protopapas 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. 83171392 7276 EXAMINER SHIAU, SHEN C ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 2174 NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE 04/29/2016 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): docketing@brookskushman.com PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07) UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD Ex parte MARIA EUGENIA PROTOP AP AS and ANTHONY GERALD KING Appeal2014-008652 Application 13/078,355 Technology Center 2100 Before: ELENI MANTIS MERCADER, CARLL. SILVERMAN, and JOHN D. HAMANN, Administrative Patent Judges. MANTIS MERCADER, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL Appeal2014-008652 Application 13/078,355 STATEMENT OF CASE Appellants appeal under 35 U.S.C. Â§ 134 from a rejection of claims 1- 9 and 21-27. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. Â§ 6(b). We affirm. THE INVENTION The claimed invention is directed to managing aggregated electronic calendars in a vehicle. Abstract. Claim 1, reproduced below, is illustrative of the claimed subject matter: 1. A computer-implemented method comprising: identifying a vehicle occupant via a vehicle computer; receiving electronic calendar data including at least two electronic calendars, one associated with the vehicle occupant and one associated with a vehicle occupant contact ; receiving an instruction to add an event to the occupant- associated calendar; receiving selection of a contact-associated calendar; and adding the event to both the occupant-associated calendar and the contact-associated calendar. REFERENCES The prior art relied upon by the Examiner in rejecting the claims on appeal is: Hill et al. Amari et al. Bassett et al. Palahnuk et al. US 2004/0268270 Al Dec. 30, 2004 US 2007 /0044037 Al Feb. 22, 2007 US 2007 /0294304 Al Dec. 20, 2007 US 2009/0158200 Al June 18, 2009 REJECTIONS The Examiner made the following rejections: 2 Appeal2014-008652 Application 13/078,355 Claims 1, 4--9, and 21-26 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C Â§ 103(a) as being unpatentable over Amari in view of Palahnuk. Claims 2 and 3 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C Â§ 103(a) as being unpatentable over Amari in view of Palahnuk and Bassett. Claim 27 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C Â§ 103(a) as being unpatentable over Amari in view of Palahnuk and Hill. THE ISSUE The pivotal issue is whether Palahnuk teaches or suggests the limitations of "receiving an instruction to add an event to the occupant- associated calendar; receiving selection of a contact-associated calendar; and adding the event to both the occupant-associated calendar and the contact- associated calendar" as recited in claim 1. ANALYSIS Appellants argue that Palahnuk does not teach or suggest the limitations of "receiving an instruction to add an event to the occupant- associated calendar; receiving selection of a contact-associated calendar; and adding the event to both the occupant-associated calendar and the contact- associated calendar" as recited in claim 1 (Br. 5). Appellants in particular argue that the selection of the calendar, in Appellants' claims, results in the event being placed on the invitee' s calendar (Br. 5). Appellants assert that Palahnuk teaches, selection of a lozenge, and dragging and dropping the lozenge on a primary calendar, which places an event on a lozenge associated (but unselected) calendar (Br. 5). We do not agree with Appellants' argument. We agree with the Examiner that Palahnuk teaches selecting the identifier for a system user 3 Appeal2014-008652 Application 13/078,355 "Frank" from a user's people lozenge causing the calendar 1601 to change to the calendar shown in FIG. 18 (Ans. 3). As shown in FIG. 18, the calendar 1801 now includes indications 1805 of periods of occupied time for which Frank has events scheduled (Ans. 3, see para. 169). Looking at the calendar 1801, the user may then determine that the morning of May 17th, Frank is unavailable to have a meeting (Ans. 3, para. 169). Therefore, in the example of Bill (para. 177), the user drags Bill's name from the user's people lozenge which causes the calendar to change to Bill's calendar so that the user can simultaneously view Bill's available and unavailable times, determine when is the best time to schedule a meeting with Bill, and then the event is placed on both the user's and invitee's calendars indicated as pending (paras. 177, 213). Accordingly, we agree with the Examiner that Palahnuk teaches or suggests the limitations of "receiving an instruction to add an event to the occupant-associated calendar; receiving selection of a contact-associated calendar; and adding the event to both the occupant-associated calendar and the contact-associated calendar" as recited in claim 1 CONCLUSION The Examiner did not err in finding that Palahnuk teaches or suggests the limitations of "receiving an instruction to add an event to the occupant- associated calendar; receiving selection of a contact-associated calendar; and adding the event to both the occupant-associated calendar and the contact- associated calendar" as recited in claim 1. 4 Appeal2014-008652 Application 13/078,355 DECISION For the above reasons, the Examiner's rejection of claims 1-9 and 21- 2 7 is affirmed. No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. Â§ 1.136(a)(l )(iv) (2009). AFFIRMED 5