Ex Parte Bhogal et alDownload PDFPatent Trial and Appeal BoardJan 30, 201311242658 (P.T.A.B. Jan. 30, 2013) Copy Citation UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE ____________________ BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD ____________________ Ex parte KULVIR SINGH BHOGAL, GREGORY JENSEN BOSS, RICK ALLEN HAMILTON II, and ALEXANDRE POLOZOFF ____________________ Appeal 2010-007410 Application 11/242,658 Technology Center 2100 ____________________ Before KALYAN K. DESHPANDE, JOHNNY A. KUMAR, and JOHN G. NEW, Administrative Patent Judges. KUMAR, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL Appeal 2010-007410 Application 11/242,658 2 STATEMENT OF CASE Introduction Appellants appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134 from a final rejection of claims 1-20. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). We affirm. Exemplary Claim Exemplary claims 1 and 4 under appeal read as follows: 1. A computer implemented method for propagating an event from a source computer to a target calendaring system comprising: parsing an attribute of an event received from a source computer to determine a reference to a target calendaring system; locating an entry in a database of the system that specifies a criterion and a target template for the target calendaring system, the target template translating the attribute of the event to a field that is acceptable to the target calendaring system; determining whether the event satisfies the criterion of the target calendaring system; responsive to the event satisfying the criterion, obtaining a target template corresponding to the target calendaring system; and formatting, with the target template of the target calendaring system, the event to store an attribute of the event in an attribute of a native event. 4. The computer implemented method of claim 2, further comprising: prompting a user for a calendar type associated with the person attribute, wherein prompting occurs after receiving the event; Appeal 2010-007410 Application 11/242,658 3 receiving a user input specifying the calendar type to associate with the person attribute. Rejections on Appeal The Examiner rejected claim 2 rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 112, second paragraph, as being indefinite (Ans. 3). The Examiner rejected claims 1-4 and 6-20 under 35 U.S.C. § 102(e) as being anticipated by Tendjoukian (US 2007/0016646 A1, Jan. 18, 2007) (Ans. 4-9). The Examiner rejected claim 5 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Tendjoukian in view of Chhatrapati (US 7,334,000 B2, Feb. 19, 2008) (Ans. 9-10).1 Appellants’ Contentions 1. Appellants contend that the Examiner erred in rejecting claim 1 because Tendjoukian does not disclose “parsing an attribute of an event received from a source computer to determine a reference to a target calendaring system,” because the “actions of synchronizing data records and translating data formats” that are disclosed in Tendjoukian are different from the claimed “parsing.” Br. 12-13. 2. Appellants also contend that the Examiner erred in rejecting claim 1 because Tendjoukian does not disclose: a) “locating an entry in a database of the system that specifies a criterion and a target template for the target calendaring system” (Br. 13- 14); 1 Separate patentability is not argued for claims 2, 3, and 5-20. Therefore, we treat claims 1 and 4 as representative for purposes of this rejection. Appeal 2010-007410 Application 11/242,658 4 b) “determining whether the event satisfies the criterion of the target calendaring system” (Br. 14-15); c) “responsive to the event satisfying the criterion, obtaining a target template corresponding to the target calendaring system” (Br. 15); d) “formatting, with the target template of the target calendaring system, the event to store an attribute of the event in an attribute of a native event” (Br. 15-16). 3. Appellants contend that the Examiner erred in rejecting claim 4 because Tendjoukian does not disclose “prompting a user for a calendar type associated with the person attribute, wherein prompting occurs after receiving the event.” (Br. 16-17). Issues on Appeal Did the Examiner err in rejecting claims 1-20 as being anticipated or obvious because the cited references fail to teach or suggest the argued limitations? ANALYSIS We have reviewed the Examiner’s rejections in light of Appellants’ arguments that the Examiner has erred. We disagree with Appellants’ conclusions. We agree with (1) the findings and reasons set forth by the Examiner in the action from which this appeal is taken and (2) the reasons set forth by the Examiner in the Examiner’s Answer in response to Appellants’ Appeal Brief. We concur with the conclusions reached by the Examiner. Appeal 2010-007410 Application 11/242,658 5 Indefiniteness - Claim 2 As Appellants do not address the indefiniteness rejection, Appellants have waived any argument of error and we summarily sustain the rejection of claim 2 under 35 U.S.C. § 112, second paragraph, as indefinite. See 37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(1)(vii). Anticipation – Claims 1-4 and 6-20; Obviousness - Claim 5 As to above contention 1, Appellants have not provided an explicit definition of “parsing an attribute” in their Specification. Figure 5 of the Specification list the attributes to include time, category, name of person, type of entry, unique ID, and action. Thus, we interpret the claim language “parsing an attribute” using the broadest reasonable interpretation consistent with Appellants’ disclosure – and we find that such an interpretation also encompasses Tendjoukian’s examining of data records to reference a particular data record. Ans. 12-13. See In re Morris, 127 F.3d 1048, 1054 (Fed. Cir. 1997). Tendjoukian discloses providing a “unique identifier” that the server uses to reference an item it sends to the client. Tendjoukian, paragraph 0072. We therefore find that Tendjoukian’s examining of the unique identifier encompasses “parsing an attribute” as claimed. As to above contentions 2 and 3, we begin our analysis by observing that Appellants respond to the Examiner’s final rejection of claims 1-20 by merely reciting the language identified supra in the claims and asserting that the aforementioned limitations are not disclosed in Tendjoukian. (See Br. 13-17). In addition, we find Appellants have failed to traverse the specific factual findings the Examiner has set forth in the rejection of claims 1-20. (See Ans. 4-7). Appeal 2010-007410 Application 11/242,658 6 We note that Appellants’ arguments amount to no more than reciting the claim features and generally alleging that Tendjoukian is deficient. Merely pointing out certain claim features recited in independent claim 1 and dependent claim 4 and nakedly asserting that Tendjoukian fails to disclose such features does not amount to a separate patentability argument. See 37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(vii) (“A statement which merely points out what a claim recites will not be considered an argument for separate patentability of the claim.”); see also In re Lovin, 652 F.3d 1349, 1357 (Fed. Cir. 2011) (“[W]e hold that the Board reasonably interpreted Rule 41.37 to require more substantive arguments in an appeal brief than a mere recitation of the claim elements and a naked assertion that the corresponding elements were not found in the prior art.”); cf. In re Baxter Travenol Labs., 952 F.2d 388, 391 (Fed. Cir. 1991) (“It is not the function of this court to examine the claims in greater detail than argued by an appellant, looking for [patentable] distinctions over the prior art.”). On this record, we find Appellants have failed to present substantive arguments and supporting evidence persuasive of Examiner error regarding the aforementioned disputed limitations in contentions 2 and 3. CONCLUSIONS The Examiner did not err in rejecting claim 2 under 35 U.S.C. § 112, second paragraph, as being indefinite. The Examiner did not err in rejecting claims 1-4 and 6-20 under 35 U.S.C. § 102(e) as being anticipated by Tendjoukian. Appeal 2010-007410 Application 11/242,658 7 The Examiner did not err in rejecting claim 5 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Tendjoukian and Chhatrapati. DECISION The Examiner’s rejections of claims 1-20 are affirmed. 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). AFFIRMED msc Copy with citationCopy as parenthetical citation