Ex Parte CHHATRAPATI et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Sep 14, 2018

13953578 (P.T.A.B. Sep. 14, 2018)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
13/953,578 07/29/2013 RUPESH CHHATRAPATI
107193 7590 09/18/2018
Keller Jolley Preece/Facebook
1010 North 500 East
Suite 210
North Salt Lake, UT 84054
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.
19487.98.1.1.1.2 2209
EXAMINER
ALLEN, NICHOLAS E
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2154
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
09/18/2018 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@kjpip.com
gjolley@kjpip.com
tmeid@kjpip.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte RUPESH CHHATRAP ATI, RICHARD J. TREITEL,
JON CHESTER, DAVID SOBOTKA, LOUIS LAO, ANDREW ZAESKE,
and MEERA VENGADASUBBU
Appeal2018-003573
Application 13/953,578 1
Technology Center 2100
Before ROBERT E. NAPPI, MARC S. HOFF, and
SCOTT B. HOWARD, Administrative Patent Judges.
HOFF, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Appellants appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134 from a Final Rejection of
claims 24--44. 2 We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We affirm.
Appellants' invention concerns generating digital reminders via
computer networks. The claimed method stores template files that specify
standard content for a reminder, and a set of directives that indicate where
1 The real party in interest is Facebook, Inc. See App. Br. 1.
2 Claims 1-23 have been cancelled.
Appeal2018-003573
Application 13/953,578
substitution of event-specific content should occur. Spec. 3, 5. A reminder
template is determined for a calendar event promoted by a third party, the
reminder template comprising at least one variable that references content
specified by the third party and stored separately from the reminder
template. A reminder notification is generated that contains the content
specified by the third party, by accessing the content specified by the third
party using the at least one variable within the reminder template. Spec. 22,
24--26.
Claim 24 is reproduced below:
24. A method, comprising:
receiving, from a user of an electronic calendar service,
an event identifier for a calendar event promoted by a third
party;
determining, using at least one processor, a reminder
template associated with the event identifier for the calendar
event promoted by the third party, wherein the reminder
template comprises at least one variable that references content
specified by the third party and stored separately from the
reminder template;
adding a reminder to an electronic calendar of the user in
accordance with the reminder template;
generating a reminder notification that contains the
content specified by the third party by accessing the content
specified by the third party using the at least one variable within
the reminder template; and
sending the reminder notification to the user.
The Examiner relies upon the following prior art in rejecting the
claims on appeal:
Rasansky et al.
Cameron et al.
us 5,960,406
US 6,202,062 B 1
2
Sept. 28, 1999
Mar. 13, 2001
Appeal2018-003573
Application 13/953,578
Claims 24--44 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Rasansky and Cameron.
Throughout this decision, we make reference to the Appeal Brief
("App. Br.," filed [Nov. 6, 2017]), the Reply Brief ("Reply Br.," filed [Feb.
13, 2018]), and the Examiner's Answer ("Ans.," mailed [Dec. 18, 2017]) for
their respective details.
ISSUES
1. Does the combination of Rasansky and Cameron disclose or
suggest determining a reminder template associated with the event identifier
for the calendar event promoted by the third party, wherein the reminder
template comprises at least one variable that references content specified by
the third party and stored separately from the reminder template?
2. Does the combination of Rasansky and Cameron disclose or
suggest generating a reminder notification that contains the content specified
by the third party by accessing the content specified by the third party using
the at least one variable within the reminder template?
ANALYSIS
Independent claim 24 recites, inter alia, "determining, using at least
one processor, a reminder template associated with the event identifier for
the calendar event promoted by the third party, wherein the reminder
template comprises at least one variable that references content specified by
the third party and stored separately from the reminder template." Claim 24
subsequently recites "generating a reminder notification that contains the
content specified by the third party by accessing the content specified by the
3
Appeal2018-003573
Application 13/953,578
third party using the at least one variable within the reminder template."
Independent claims 36 and 42 recite analogous limitations.
Appellants argue that Cameron fails to disclose these limitations.
App. Br. 10. "Cameron's teaching regarding an Egocentric Interface fails to
teach generating a reminder notification that contains the content specified
by the third party by accessing the content specified by the third party using
the at least one variable within the reminder template." App. Br. 10-11.
We are not persuaded by Appellants' argument. Appellants disclose
that "[ a ]11 standard content for reminders is stored in a set of template files.
The template file specifies the standard content for the reminder, and
includes a set of directives within the template indicating where the
substitution of event-specific content should occur." Spec. 4. Reminder
templates are disclosed as including a format, as well as components such as
user data, design, and sponsorship programming. Spec. 19. Appellants'
templates, therefore, are simply stored files that include text, and further
include locations, referred to as "directives" in the Specification but often
known in the art as "fields," where "event-specific content" is to be inserted.
In this way, we find that the disclosed templates are analogous to paper or
electronic forms.
The Examiner finds, and we agree, that Cameron discloses the
claimed reminder template, comprising at least one variable that references
content specified by a third party and stored separately from the reminder
template. Ans. 6-8. Cameron discloses a so-called "Egocentric Interface"
that includes a user's personal information as well as other content.
Cameron col. 38:29--36; see Fig. lOB. "The Egocentric Interface will
include the relationship between that content and the user in a way that
4
Appeal2018-003573
Application 13/953,578
demonstrates how the content relates to the user." Cameron col. 38:36-39.
It is clear from this sentence of Cameron that the referenced "content"
comes from a third party, i.e., some entity other than the user. Cameron
provides an example of an "upcoming ski trip the user has signed up for ....
[T]he interface will include information about events from the user's
personal calendar and contact list, such as other people who will be in the
area during the ski trip." Cameron col. 38:39-45. We agree with the
Examiner's finding that "[fJormatting various information (e.g. list contacts
for a trip) would have required a template (e.g. a list) in order to generate
reminders with content. The event identifier in Cameron's example would
have been a ski trip which would have caused said template to have been
determined for presenting new information." Ans. 7-8.
The Examiner further finds that Cameron discloses the claimed
"generating a reminder notification that contains the content specified by
the third party by accessing the content specified by the third party using the
at least one variable within the reminder template." Ans. 8. The Examiner
again cites the Egocentric Interface. Ans. 8-9; Cameron col. 38. We agree
with the Examiner's finding that "[f]ormatting various information (e.g. list
contacts for a trip) would have required a template (e.g. a list) in order to
generate reminders with content. The event identifier in Cameron's example
would have been a ski trip which would have caused said template to have
been determined for presenting new information." Ans. 9.
We are also unconvinced of error by Appellants' argument that the
Examiner has failed to express a rationale for combining Rasansky and
Cameron having a rational underpinning to support the asserted
combination. We agree with the Examiner that modifying Rasansky to
5
Appeal2018-003573
Application 13/953,578
include Cameron's teaching of content specified by a third party using at
least one variable, as illustrated by Cameron's example including
information concerning "other people who will be in the area during the ski
trip," would have been obvious because it would facilitate multi-user
scheduling. (App. Br. 9). In Cameron's example, because of the operation
of the interface, the user would be made aware of the presence in the same
location of other people from the user's personal calendar and contact list,
which would have facilitated that group of people scheduling events and
activities with one another.
We find that the combination of Rasansky and Cameron discloses all
the limitations of independent claims 24, 36, and 42. Therefore, we sustain
the Examiner's§ 103(a) rejection of claims 24--44.
CONCLUSIONS
1. The combination of Rasansky and Cameron discloses determining
a reminder template associated with the event identifier for the calendar
event promoted by the third party, wherein the reminder template comprises
at least one variable that references content specified by the third party and
stored separately from the reminder template.
2. The combination of Rasansky and Cameron discloses generating a
reminder notification that contains the content specified by the third party
by accessing the content specified by the third party using the at least one
variable within the reminder template.
ORDER
The Examiner's decision to reject claims 24--44 under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a) is affirmed.
6
Appeal2018-003573
Application 13/953,578
No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with
this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a)(l )(iv).
AFFIRMED
7