Microsoft Technology Licensing, LLC

Patent Trials and Appeals Board

Aug 27, 2020

2020002822 (P.T.A.B. Aug. 27, 2020)

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.
15/637,976 06/29/2017 Sri Ramya MALLIPUDI 402447-US-NP (9038-US) 1065
143198 7590 08/27/2020
MICHAEL BEST & FRIEDRICH LLP (MS)
790 N WATER ST
SUITE 2500
MILWAUKEE, WI 53202
EXAMINER
WEBB III, JAMES L
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
3624
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
08/27/2020 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):
mkeipdocket@michaelbest.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte SRI RAMYA MALLIPUDI, HIROSHI TSUKAHARA,
VIGNESH SACHIDANANDAM, NED B. FRIEND and
PETER L. ENGRAV

Appeal 2020-002822
Application 15/637,976
Technology Center 3600
Before ST. JOHN COURTENAY III, LARRY J. HUME, and
PHILLIP A. BENNETT, Administrative Patent Judges.

COURTENAY, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 134(a), Appellant1 appeals from the
Examiner’s decision rejecting claims 1, 3–5, 7–12, and 14–23, which are all
claims pending in the application. Appellant has canceled claims 2, 6, and
13. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We AFFIRM.

1 We use the word “Appellant” to refer to “applicant” as defined in 37
C.F.R. § 1.42(a). Appellant identifies Microsoft Technology Licensing,
LLC as the real party in interest. Appeal Br. 2.
Appeal 2020-002822
Application 15/637,976

2

STATEMENT OF THE CASE2
The claims are directed to “electronic calendars, and, more
particularly, to electronic calendar services that generate suggested calendar
events.” See Spec. ¶ 1.
Claim 1, reproduced below, is representative of the subject matter on
appeal (italics added to disputed limitations):
1. A system for generating suggested calendar events within
an electronic calendar, the system comprising:
an electronic processor configured to
access a plurality of data records associated with a user,
each of the plurality of data records including data associated
with one of a plurality of calendar events,
generate and output a user interface displaying an
electronic calendar of the user, the user interface including a
first section, wherein the first section includes a timeline and a
representation of at least one of the plurality of calendar events
positioned in a chronological order along the timeline,
determine a suggested calendar event for the user,
generate and output a representation of the suggested
calendar event within a second section of the user interface
separate from the first section, wherein the representation of the
suggested calendar event is aligned chronologically with the
timeline of the first section, and

in response to the user accepting the suggested calendar
event,

2 Our decision relies upon the Final Office Action mailed July 11, 2019
(“Final Act.”), the Appeal Brief filed Oct. 29, 2019 (“Appeal Br.”); the
Examiner’s Answer mailed Dec. 31, 2019 (“Ans.”); and the Reply Brief
filed Feb. 28, 2020 (“Reply Br.”); and the original Specification, drawings,
and claims, filed June 29, 2017 (“Spec.”).
Appeal 2020-002822
Application 15/637,976

3

add a data record for the suggested calendar event to the
plurality of data records associated with the user, and

generate and output an updated version of the electronic
calendar of the user within the user interface based on the
plurality of data records.
(emphasis added).
Evidence
The Examiner relies upon the following prior art as evidence in
support of Rejections B–F:
Metsatahti et al. (“Metsatahti”) US 2005/0108253 A1 May 19, 2005
Jain et al. (“Jain”) US 2008/0189159 A1 Aug. 7, 2008
Zhao US 2013/0145282 A1 June 6, 2013
Bernier et al. (“Bernier”) US 2014/0229217 A1 Aug. 14, 2014
Rejections
A. Claims 1, 3–5, 7–12, and 14–23 are rejected under 35 U.S.C.
§ 112(a) as failing to comply with the written description requirement. Final
Act. 6.
B. Claims 1, 5, 7, 9, 11, 12, 14, 16–19, and 21–23 are rejected
under 35 U.S.C. § 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Bernier. Final Act. 9–
14.
C. Claim 3 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being obvious
over the combination of Bernier and Metsatahti. Final Act. 15–16.
D. Claim 4 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being obvious
over the combination of Bernier, Metsatahti and Zhao. Final Act. 17.
Appeal 2020-002822
Application 15/637,976

4

E. Claims 8, 10, and 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as
being obvious over the combination of Bernier and Zhao. Final Act. 17–18.
F. Claim 20 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being obvious
over the combination of Bernier and Jain. Final Act. 19–20.
Claim Grouping
Based on Appellant’s arguments (Appeal Br. 7–13) and our discretion
under 37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(1)(iv), we decide the appeal of 35 U.S.C. § 102
Rejection B of claims 1, 5, 7, 9, 11, 12, 14, 16–19, and 21–23 on the basis of
representative claim 1. We address separately § 112(a), written description
Rejection A of claims 1, 3–5, 7–12, and 14–23, and obviousness Rejections
C–F of claims 3, 4, 8, 10, 15, and 20, infra.
Issues and Analysis
In reaching this Decision, we consider all evidence presented and all
arguments actually made by Appellant. To the extent Appellant has not
advanced separate, substantive arguments for particular claims, or other
issues, such arguments are waived. 37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(1)(iv).

1. 35 U.S.C. § 112(a) Rejection A of Claims 1, 3–5, 7–12, and 14–23.
Issue
Did the Examiner err in rejecting claims 1, 3–5, 7–12, and 14–23
under 35 U.S.C. § 112(a) as failing to comply with the written description
requirement?
Appeal 2020-002822
Application 15/637,976

5

Analysis
Claim 1 recites in pertinent part: “generate and output a
representation of the suggested calendar event within a second section of the
user interface separate from the first section, wherein the representation of
the suggested calendar event is aligned chronologically with the timeline of
the first section.” Appeal Br. 15, Claims App. (emphasis added).
The Examiner finds the claim 1 language “‘wherein the representation
of the suggested calendar event is aligned chronologically with the timeline
of the first section’ . . . does not appear to be supported by the originally
filed disclosure” and introduces new matter. Final Act. 7–8 (emphasis
added).
Appellant disagrees, and contends:
Applicant respectfully asserts that at least FIGS. 7 and 10 of the
pending application (reproduced below) provides support. FIG.
7 illustrates how a suggested event (205) is displayed
chronologically along the same time line as a user’s accepted
events (representations l00A, l00B, l00C). FIG. 10 illustrates
that, when a user accepts the suggested event, the suggested
event is moved down by the user’s accepted events in the same
position (i.e., the same chronological position along a timeline
(97) of a user’s electronic calendar (95)). In fact, Paragraph
[0031] of the pending application provides that the timeline of
the electronic calendar may be represented as a horizontal line
tracking the passage of time (from earlier times on the left to
later times on the right), where each of the user’s accepted
events is positioned chronologically along the timeline.
Applicant also respectfully points the Examiner’s attention to
Paragraph [0021] of the pending application discussing the
advantages of the claimed subject matter, including increasing
the usability and flexibility of an electronic calendar. In
particular, Paragraph [0021] of the pending application provides
that “[b]y displaying the suggested calendar events within the
user’s electronic calendar [(as illustrated in FIG. 7)], a user can
Appeal 2020-002822
Application 15/637,976

6

quickly determine whether the suggested calendar event fits
within the user’s schedule ...” If the suggested calendar event
was not aligned chronologically with the timeline of the user’s
accepted events, a user could not quickly determine whether the
suggested calendar event fits within the user’s schedule, and,
thus, would decrease usability and flexibility of the electronic
calendar.
Appeal Br. 7–8.
The written description “must clearly allow persons of ordinary skill
in the art to recognize that [the inventor] invented what is claimed.” Ariad
Pharms., Inc. v. Eli Lilly & Co., 598 F.3d 1336, 1351 (Fed. Cir. 2010) (en
banc) (citation and quotations omitted). The test is whether the disclosure
“conveys to those skilled in the art that the inventor had possession of the
claimed subject matter as of the filing date.” Id. “[A]ctual ‘possession’ or
reduction to practice outside of the specification is not enough. Rather ... it is
the specification itself that must demonstrate possession.” Id. at 1352; see
also PowerOasis, Inc. v. T-Mobile USA, Inc., 522 F.3d 1299, 1306-07 (Fed.
Cir. 2008) (emphasis added) (explaining that § 112, ¶ 1 “requires that the
written description actually or inherently disclose the claim element”). “[I]t
is not a question of whether one skilled in the art might be able to construct
the patentee’s device from the teachings of the disclosure . . . Rather, it is a
question whether the application necessarily discloses that particular device
. . . A description which renders obvious the invention for which an earlier
filing date is sought is not sufficient.” Lockwood v. American Airlines, Inc.,
107 F.3d 1565, 1572 (Fed. Cir. 1997) (quoting Jepson v. Coleman, 314 F.2d
533, 536 (CCPA 1963)) (emphasis added).
Here, we find the written description Rejection A of claim 1 appears
to be based essentially upon the Examiner’s narrow construction of the claim
Appeal 2020-002822
Application 15/637,976

7

term “aligned chronologically” irrespective of the subject matter disclosed
by Appellant’s Specification and drawings.
However, claims must be given “their broadest reasonable
interpretation [(BRI)] consistent with the [S]pecification” and “in light of the
[S]pecification as it would be interpreted by one of ordinary skill in the art.”
American Academy of Science Tech Center, 367 F.3d 1359, 1364 (Fed. Cir.
2004).
Applying BRI here, we conclude the claim 1 limitation (“wherein the
representation of the suggested calendar event is aligned chronologically
with the timeline of the first section”) broadly covers any property of
chronological alignment between the “representation of the suggested
calendar event” and “the timeline of the first section.” (emphasis added).
Thus, as claimed, the representation of the calendar event is not
required to “move in a chronological manner,” nor “move in the same
chronological manner,” as the Examiner concludes (Ans. 6), but merely
must be aligned chronologically in some manner. Id. (emphasis added).
Therefore, we accept Appellant’s claim construction (as argued in the
Reply Brief 4) of the claim term “aligned chronologically” as broad but
reasonable, i.e., as sharing some property of chronological alignment
between “the representation of the suggested calendar event” and “the
timeline of the first section.” Claim 1. As Appellant specifically argues:
“there is support in the original disclosure that the various sections of the
electronic calendar are chronologically aligned (i.e., share a property of
chronological alignment).” Reply Br. 4 (emphasis added).
For essentially the same reasons argued by Appellant in the Briefs, as
discussed above, we find the drawings and supporting descriptions of
Appeal 2020-002822
Application 15/637,976

8

Appellant’s electronic calendar (e.g., Figs. 3, 4, 7, 10; Spec., at least ¶¶ 21,
31, 34, 42), sufficiently demonstrate that Appellant had possession of the
claimed invention at the time the application was filed.
Therefore, we reverse the Examiner’s written description Rejection A
under 35 U.S.C. § 112(a) of independent claim 1. We also reverse Rejection
A of independent claims 11 and 16, which recite the same disputed
“wherein” clause limitation, and for the same reason, we reverse Rejection A
of all remaining dependent claims.
Accordingly, we reverse the Examiner’s Rejection A of claims 1, 3–5,
7–12, and 14–23 under 35 U.S.C. § 112(a).

3. 35 U.S.C. § 102 Rejection B of Claims 1, 5, 7, 9, 11, 12, 14, 16–19,
and 21–23

Issue
Under 35 U.S.C. § 102, we address the following argued limitation
regarding anticipation Rejection B of claims 1, 5, 7, 9, 11, 12, 14, 16–19,
and 21–23:
Issue: Did the Examiner err by finding that Bernier’s timelines and
calendar events disclose the disputed limitations “generate and output a
representation of the suggested calendar event within a second section of the
user interface separate from the first section, wherein the representation of
the suggested calendar event is aligned chronologically with the timeline of
Appeal 2020-002822
Application 15/637,976

9

the first section,” within the meaning of representative claim 1? (emphasis
added). 3
Appellant contends:
Although the interfaces of FIGS. 24 and 26 of Bernier include a
schedule display portion and a suggestion display portion, the
interfaces of Bernier do not teach or suggest an alignment
between the portions as recited in Claim 1. As recited in Claim
1, the first section includes “a timeline and a representation of at
least one of the plurality of calendar events positioned in a
chronological order along the timeline,” and the second section
includes “a representation of the suggested calendar event” and
is “aligned chronologically with the timeline of the first section.”
In other words, the first section and the second section are
aligned chronologically, such that when the representation of the
suggested calendar event is displayed within the second section,
the representation of the suggested calendar event is aligned
chronologically with the timeline and the representation of at
least one of the plurality of calendar events of the first section.
Appeal Br. 11.
Regarding the Examiner’s citations to Bernier’s Figs. 24 and 26
disclosing the disputed limitation (Final Act. 10), Appellant further argues:
Although the interfaces illustrated in FIG. 24 and 26 of Bernier
include displaying a schedule of a worker (via the schedule
display portion) and a suggested activity (via the suggestion
display portion), Bernier makes no mention whatsoever to a
chronological alignment of the schedule display portion and the
suggestion display portion as recited in Claim 1. In particular,
Bernier makes no mention whatsoever to a suggested activity
displayed in the suggestion display portion being "aligned
chronologically with the timeline" of the worker's schedule, as

3 Claims must be given “their broadest reasonable interpretation consistent
with the [S]pecification” and “in light of the [S]pecification as it would be
interpreted by one of ordinary skill in the art.” American Academy of
Science Tech Center, 367 F.3d at 1364.
Appeal 2020-002822
Application 15/637,976

10

recited in Claim 1. In fact, as illustrated in FIGS. 24 and 26 of
Bernier, the suggested activities displayed in the suggestion
display portion of the interfaces do not include any type of
date/time information.
Appeal Br. 12.
The Examiner disagrees with Appellant, and further explains the basis
for the rejection in the Answer. As an issue of claim construction, the
Examiner concludes: “The claim requires a second section (suggested
calendar event) to be chronologically aligned with a first section (timeline).”
Ans. 8 (emphasis added).
The Examiner further concludes that the “broadest reasonable
interpretation in light of the specification of chronologically aligned is one
section (suggested events) being within the time period corresponding to a
second section (calendar of events).” Id. (emphasis added).
The Examiner finds Bernier’s schedule display portion 2404 and
suggestion display portion 2406 disclose the first and second sections of the
user interface recited in claim 1, respectively. See Ans. 8 (citing Bernier
Fig. 24).
Appellant responds in the Reply Brief:
Even assuming for the sake of argument that the suggested
activities of the Bernier have some type of temporal correlation
or relationship with a user's schedule, the Bernier does not
illustrate or describe the suggested activities being outputted in
such a manner that the representations of the suggested
activities are visually aligned chronologically with the user’s
schedule. In other words, Bernier makes no mention
whatsoever of a visual representation of the temporal
correlation or relationship (a chronological alignment as alleged
by the Examiner) between the representation of the suggested
activities and the user's schedule.
Appeal 2020-002822
Application 15/637,976

11

Reply Br. 6.
Turning to the evidence, Bernier, at paragraph 249, describes:
In some implementations, suggestion display portion 2404 may
display information relating to suggestions. For example,
suggestion display portion 2404 may display one or more
suggestions provided by a suggestion management module the
same as or similar to suggestion management module 120.
Information relating to suggestions may comprise, for example,
types of suggestions displayed, subsets of time periods
corresponding to the selected time period of the schedule for
which to display suggestions, information relating to one or more
suggestions for activities, and/ or other information relating to
suggestions. Information relating to one or more suggestions for
activities may comprise relevant information associated with the
suggestion. For example, the relevant information may include
one or more of: a date of the activity, location information
associated with the activity (e.g., a specific location at which the
activity is to be performed, a map of the location, directions to
the location, and/or other location information), one or more
rationales for the activity, one or more customers associated with
the activity, one or more products associated with the activity,
one or more scores (for the overall suggestion, for one or more
factors associated with the suggestion, for one or more
parameters associated with the factors, and/or other scores)
related to the suggestion, performance execution information
related to the suggestion, whether a suggestion is a new
suggestion, and/or other relevant information.
Bernier ¶ 249; Fig. 24. (emphasis added).
As noted above, we accept Appellant’s claim construction for the
claim term “chronological alignment” in the Reply Brief (4) as broad but
reasonable, i.e., as sharing some property of chronological alignment
between the representation of the calendar event and the timeline. As argued
by Appellant: “there is support in the original disclosure that the various
Appeal 2020-002822
Application 15/637,976

12

sections of the electronic calendar are chronologically aligned (i.e., share a
property of chronological alignment).” Reply Br. 4 (emphasis added).
Given this broader construction, we are not persuaded by Appellant’s
arguments because we find Bernier’s daily view of both the doctor’s
schedule (“schedule display portion 2404” ¶ 246) as depicted to the right in
juxtaposition to the corresponding suggestions for “followup” appointment
dates (“suggestion display portion 2406” ¶ 246) disclose the disputed
limitation “wherein the representation of the suggested calendar event is
aligned chronologically with the timeline of the first section.” Ans. 9, citing
Bernier ¶ 249.4
We find chronological alignment by days of the week (Mon.— Fri.) is
disclosed in Bernier (Fig. 24) between the daily timeline in the “first”
section (right daily schedule section 2404) and the representation of the
suggested calendar event (i.e., the “followup” appointment days left section
2406).
Moreover, Appellant’s argument in the Reply Brief is dispositive:
“Even assuming for the sake of argument that the suggested activities of []
Bernier have some type of temporal correlation” . . . Bernier does not
disclose the representations of the suggested activities “are visually aligned
chronologically with the user's schedule.” Reply Br. 6 (emphasis added).

4 We note there appears to be a typographical error in the first sentence of
Bernier ¶ 249, where 2406 is mistyped as 2404.
Appeal 2020-002822
Application 15/637,976

13

However, “visually” aligned is not recited in the claims.5 Appellant’s
argument (id.) is not persuasive because it is not commensurate with the
scope of the claims.
Accordingly, on this record, we are not persuaded the Examiner erred
in finding Bernier discloses the disputed limitations as recited in claim 1.
Therefore, we affirm Rejection B of claim 1 under 35 U.S.C. § 102(a)(1) as
anticipated by Bernier.
Appellant did not separately argue independent claims 11 and 16, nor
dependent claims 5, 7, 9, 12, 14, 17–19, and 21–23, as also rejected under
Rejection B. See Appeal Br. 13. Arguments not made are waived. See 37
C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(1)(iv). Therefore, these claims fall with independent
claim 1.
Rejections C, D, E, and F under 35 U.S.C. § 103
Appellant does not separately argue the remaining dependent claims
3, 4, 8, 10, 15, and 20 that were rejected under obviousness rejections C–F.
Therefore, we affirm the Examiner’s Rejections C–F of these claims, based
upon the doctrine of waiver under our procedural rule. See 37 C.F.R.
§ 41.37(c)(1)(iv).
Conclusions
(1) The Examiner erred with respect to Rejection A of claims 1,
3–5, 7–12, and 14–23, under 35 U.S.C. § 112(a) (written description).

5 [L]imitations are not to be read into the claims from the specification” (In
re Van Geuns, 988 F.2d 1181, 1184 (Fed. Cir. 1993) (citing In re Zletz, 893
F.2d 319, 321 (Fed. Cir. 1989)).
Appeal 2020-002822
Application 15/637,976

14

(2) The Examiner did not err with respect to anticipation Rejection
B of claims 1, 5, 7, 9, 11, 12, 14, 16–19, and 21–23, under 35 U.S.C.
§ 102(a)(1) over Bernier.
(3) The Examiner did not err with respect to § 103 obviousness
Rejections C–F of claims 3, 4, 8, 10, 15, and 20 over the cited combinations
of prior art.
DECISION SUMMARY
In summary:
Claims
Rejected
35 U.S.C. § Basis/Referenc
es
Affirmed Reversed
1, 3–5, 7–12,
14–23
112(a) Written
description
1, 3–5, 7–
12, 14–23
1, 5, 7, 9, 11,
12, 14, 16–19,
21–23
102(a) Bernier 1, 5, 7, 9, 11,
12, 14, 16–19,
21–23

3 103 Bernier,
Metsatahti
3
4 103 Bernier,
Metsatahti,
Zhao
4
8, 10, 15 103 Bernier, Zhao 8, 10, 15
20 103 Bernier, Jain 20
Overall
Outcome
1, 3–5, 7–12,
14–23

Because we have affirmed at least one ground of rejection with
respect to each claim on appeal, the Examiner’s decision is affirmed. See 37
C.F.R. § 41.50(a)(1).
Appeal 2020-002822
Application 15/637,976

15

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). See
37 C.F.R. § 41.50(f).
AFFIRMED