Ex Parte KRISHNA

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Nov 30, 2018

14225754 (P.T.A.B. Nov. 30, 2018)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE
14/225,754 03/26/2014
106095 7590 12/04/2018
Baker Botts LLP/CA Technologies
2001 Ross Avenue
SUITE 900
Dallas, TX 75201
FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
Vikas KRISHNA
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.
063170.A021 4937
EXAMINER
BIBBEE, JARED M
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2161
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
12/04/2018 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):
PTOmaill@bakerbotts.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte VIKAS KRISHNA 1
Appeal2018-004783
Application 14/225,7542
Technology Center 2100
Before JAMES R. HUGHES, BETH Z. SHAW, and
SCOTT B. HOWARD, Administrative Patent Judges.
HUGHES, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Appellant seeks our review under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) of the
Examiner's Final Rejection of claims 1-20, which constitute all the claims
1 Appellant identifies CA, Inc., as the real party in interest. See Appeal Br.
3.
2 The application on appeal has an effective filing date of Feb. 24, 2014.
Therefore, the Leahy-Smith America Invents Act (AIA) amendments to the
U.S. Code(§§ 102, 103) are applicable. See Manual of Patent Examining
Procedure (MPEP) § 2159.02 (The amended sections "apply to any patent
application that contains or contained at any time a claim to a claimed
invention that has an effective filing date that is on or after March 16,
2013.").
Appeal2018-004783
Application 14/225,754
pending in this application. Final Act. 1-2; Appeal Br. 1. 3 We have
jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b ).
We reverse.
Appellant's Invention
The invention at issue on appeal "relates generally to automatically
compiling content for a user, and more specifically, to [ computers, computer
program products,] and method[ s] for grouping content based upon user
activity" (Spec. ,r 1 ). The method identifies a meeting (to be attended by a
participant in the future), and multiple document repositories associated with
the participant. The method retrieves, indexes, and stores the content in the
multiple document repositories, and also determines a meeting context based
upon meeting information (including an agenda) included in an electronic
calendar of the participant. The method queries the multiple document
repositories utilizing the determined context and key terms associated with
the context and identifies potentially relevant documents. The method
compiles the identified potentially relevant documents, stores the documents
as a group in a meeting documents collection, and provides the participant
with access to the documents collection by sending a hyperlink to the
participant. The method also dynamically changes priority of contents of the
meeting documents collection to match the agenda. Spec. ,r,r 2, 16, 18, and
20-31; Abstract.
3 We refer to Appellant's Specification ("Spec.") filed Mar. 26, 2014
(claiming benefit of US 61/943,829 filed Feb. 24, 2014); and Appeal Brief
("Appeal Br.") filed Sept. 20, 2017. We also refer to the Final Office Action
("Final Act.") mailed Apr. 20, 2017; and Examiner's Answer ("Ans.")
mailed Jan. 31, 2018.
2
Appeal2018-004783
Application 14/225,754
Illustrative Claim
Independent claim 1, reproduced below with key disputed limitations
emphasized, further illustrates the invention:
1. A method, comprising:
identifying a meeting to be attended by a participant in the
future, wherein multiple document repositories are associated
with the participant;
retrieving and indexing the participant's content in the
multiple document repositories, wherein the participant's
indexed content is stored in a central system;
determining, using a processor, a context of the meeting
based upon meeting information included in an electronic
calendar of the participant, wherein the meeting information
comprises an agenda;
querying the multiple document repositories associated
with the participant using the context and key terms associated
with the context, wherein querying comprises applying the
context and key terms against the participant's indexed content;
identifying a plurality of potentially relevant documents
based upon the query results;
compiling the identified potentially relevant documents
and storing the documents as a group in a meeting documents
collection;
providing the participant with access to the meeting
documents collection, wherein the providing the participant with
access comprises sending a hyperlink to the participant to allow
ease of access to the meeting documents collection; and
dynamically changing priority of contents of the meeting
documents collection to match the agenda.
3
Appeal2018-004783
Application 14/225,754
Rejections on Appeal
1. The Examiner rejects claims 1-7, 10-15, and 17-204 under 35
U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Kindel (US 2013/0318079 Al,
published Nov. 28, 2013), McIntosh (US 2007/0143376 Al, published June
21, 2007) Kuo et al. (US 2015/0032811 Al, published Jan. 29, 2015 (filed
July 29, 2013)) ("Kuo"), and Ida et al. (US 2014/0237075 Al, published
Aug. 21, 2014 (filed Feb. 20, 2014)), ("Ida"). See Final Act. 3-8.
2. The Examiner rejects claims 8 and 16 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as
being unpatentable over Kindel, McIntosh, Kuo, Ida, and Beeston et al.
(US 2007 /0055831 Al, published Mar. 8, 2007) ("Beeston"). See Final Act.
8-9.
3. The Examiner rejects claim 9 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being
unpatentable over Kindel, McIntosh, Kuo, Ida, and Omoigui
(US 2010/0070448 Al, published Mar. 18, 2010). See Final Act. 9-10.
ISSUES
Based upon our review of the record, Appellant's contentions, and the
Examiner's findings and conclusions, the issues before us follow:
1. Did the Examiner err in finding the combination of Kindel,
McIntosh, Kuo, and Ida would have taught or suggested "dynamically
changing priority of contents of the meeting documents collection to match
the agenda" within the meaning of Appellant's claim 1 and the
commensurate limitations of claim 17?
4 The Examiner omits claim 7 from the statement of the rejection (see Final
Act. 3; Appeal Br. 10, n. 1 ). Claim 7 is discussed in the substantive
rejection (see Final Act. 7). Accordingly, we find the Examiner's
typographical error harmless and correct the statement of rejection for clarity
and consistency.
4
Appeal2018-004783
Application 14/225,754
2. Did the Examiner err in finding the combination of Kindel,
McIntosh, Kuo, and Ida would have taught or suggested "generating a digest
of the potentially relevant documents" as recited in Appellant's claim 10?
ANALYSIS
The Obviousness Rejection of Claims 1-7 and 17-20
The Examiner rejects independent claim 1 (as well as independent
claim 17) as being obvious in view of Kindel, McIntosh, Kuo, and Ida. See
Final Act. 3-6; Ans. 9-10. Appellant contends that the combination of
Kindel, McIntosh, Kuo, and Ida does not teach the disputed limitations of
claim 1. See Appeal Br. 10-13. Specifically, Appellant contends Ida does
not describe "dynamically changing priority of contents of the meeting
documents collection to match the agenda" (Appeal Br. 12). Instead, Ida
describes "the priority of the document(s) [does] not chang[e], but rather the
time at which that same prioritized document is sent changes" (Appeal Br.
12). See Appeal Br. 12-13.
We agree with Appellant that the Examiner-cited portions of Ida (see
Final Act. 5-6; Ans. 9-10 (citing Ida ,r,r 35, 39, 42, 47, 49)) do not describe
dynamically changing priority of contents of the meeting documents
collection to match the agenda. See Appeal Br. 12-13. As explained by
Appellant's Specification, prioritizing ( changing priority) of the content of
the meeting documents (the meeting documents collection) to match the
agenda means rearranging the documents in the collection according to the
agenda-"the system may change the content priority to dynamically match
the agenda. For example, if the agenda includes topics 1, 2, and 3, the
system may prioritize the documents related to each topic or multiple topics
based on the discussion flow of the topics" (Spec. ,r 27). Ida describes a
5
Appeal2018-004783
Application 14/225,754
different (albeit similar) process of changing the timing of
sending/ downloading a document or portions (pages) of a document based
on changes to an agenda (i.e., if "the progress of the agenda" changes (Ida ,r
49) ). In Ida, the priority of the documents is set prior to the meeting and the
timing of downloading changes with the agenda. The priority of the
documents in the queue does not change. See Ida ,r,r 35, 42, 47, 49. The
Examiner does not sufficiently explain how the cited portions of Ida teach
the disputed feature of Appellant's claim 1 or how Ida may be combined
with Kindel, McIntosh, and Kuo to teach or suggest this feature.
Consequently, we are constrained by the record before us to find that
the Examiner erred in finding that the combination of Kindel, McIntosh,
Kuo, and Ida renders obvious Appellant's claim 1. Independent claim 17
includes limitations of commensurate scope. Claims 2-7 and 18-20 depend
on, and stand with, claims 1 and 17, respectively.
The Obviousness Rejection of Claims 8 and 9
The Examiner rejects dependent claims 8 and 9 as obvious in view of
Kindel, McIntosh, Kuo, and Ida in combination with Beeston or Omoigui.
See Final Act. 8-10. The Examiner does not suggest, and we do not find,
that the additional references (Beeston or Omoigui) cure the deficiencies of
Ida in combination with Kindel, McIntosh, and Kuo (supra). Therefore, we
reverse the Examiner's obviousness rejections of dependent claims 8 and 9,
for the same reasons set forth with respect to claim 1 (supra).
The Obviousness Rejection of Claims 10---15
The Examiner rejects independent claim 10 as being obvious in view
of Kindel, McIntosh, Kuo, and Ida. See Final Act. 3-8; Ans. 10-11.
Appellant contends that the combination of Kindel, McIntosh, Kuo, and Ida
6
Appeal2018-004783
Application 14/225,754
does not teach the disputed limitations of claim 1. See Appeal Br. 13-15.
Specifically, Appellant contends Kindel does not describe "generating a
digest of the potentially relevant documents" (Appeal Br. 14). Rather,
Kindel describes that a "search of various databases may be made to
determine which items may be 'work related'" (Appeal Br. 14). See Appeal
Br. 14--15.
We agree with Appellant that the Examiner-cited portions of Kindel
(see Final Act. 7-8; Ans. 10-11 (citing Kindel ,r,r 66, 67)) do not describe
generating a digest of documents. See Appeal Br. 14--15. The Examiner
propounds a definition of "digest"-"a compilation or summary of material
or information" (Ans. 11 }-that is unreasonably broad. A digest requires a
"summary or synopsis" of the material digested-that is a digest is "a book,
periodical, etc. consisting chiefly of such summaries or synopses or of
articles condensed from other publications." Webster's New World College
Dictionary (4th ed. 1999); see Webster's New World College Dictionary
(5th ed. 2011) available at http://www.yourdictionary.com/digest (last
visited Nov. 26, 2018). A digest requires more than just a compilation.
Kindel, at best, describes a compilation of work-related documents. See
Kindel ,r,r 66, 67. Kindel does not describe summarizing the compiled
documents. See id. The Examiner does not sufficiently explain how the
cited portions of Kindel teach the disputed feature of Appellant's claim 10.
Consequently, we are constrained by the record before us to find that
the Examiner erred in finding that the combination of Kindel, McIntosh,
Kuo, and Ida renders obvious Appellant's claim 10. Claims 11-15 depend
on, and stand with, claim 10.
7
Appeal2018-004783
Application 14/225,754
The Obviousness Rejection of Claim 16
The Examiner rejects claim 16, which depends from claim 10, as
obvious in view of Kindel, McIntosh, Kuo, and Ida in combination with
Beeston. See Final Act. 8-9. The Examiner does not suggest, and we do not
find, that Beeston cures the deficiencies of Kindel (supra). Therefore, we
reverse the Examiner's obviousness rejections of dependent claim 16, for the
same reasons set forth with respect to claim 10 (supra).
CONCLUSIONS
The Examiner erred in rejecting claims 1-20 under 35 U.S.C. § 103.
DECISION
We reverse the Examiner's rejection of claims 1-20.
REVERSED
8