Ex Parte Lu

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Jun 26, 2018

13620888 (P.T.A.B. Jun. 26, 2018)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
13/620,888 09/15/2012 Larry L. Lu
107193 7590 06/28/2018
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.
19487.199.1.1.2 7039
EXAMINER
ROBINSON, MARSH ON L
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2178
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
06/28/2018 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 LARRY L. LU
Appeal2017-002679
Application 13/620,888
Technology Center 2100
Before BIBHU R. MOHANTY, BRUCE T. WIEDER, and
TARA L. HUTCHINGS, Administrative Patent Judges.
MOHANTY, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
The Appellant 1 seeks our review under 35 U.S.C. § 134 of the
non-final rejection of claims 21--42 and 44--46, which are all the claims
pending in the application. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b ).
SUMMARY OF THE DECISION
We AFFIRM.
1 According to Appellant, "[t]he real party in interest is Facebook, Inc."
(App. Br. 1).
Appeal2017-002679
Application 13/620,888
THE INVENTION
The Appellant's claimed invention is directed to electronic calendars
including event information and calendar overlays (Spec. para. 2). Claim
21, reproduced below, is representative of the subject matter on appeal.
21. A method comprising:
presenting a view, using at least one processor, of a
personal electronic calendar from a first source overlaid with a
non-personal electronic calendar from a second source, wherein
the personal electronic calendar comprises a first set of calendar
events, and wherein the non-personal electronic calendar
comprises a second set of calendar events;
detecting a first notice associated with the personal
electronic calendar, wherein the first notice is associated with a
first particular calendar event from the first set of calendar
events;
providing the first notice to the user;
detecting a second notice associated with the non-
personal electronic calendar, wherein the second notice is
associated with a second particular calendar event from the
second set of calendar events; and
providing the second notice to the user.
THE REJECTION
The following rejection is before us for review:
Claims 21--42 and 44--46 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 102(e) as
anticipated by Barnett (US 6,369,840 Bl, issued Apr. 9, 2002).
2
Appeal2017-002679
Application 13/620,888
FINDINGS OF FACT
We have determined that the findings of fact in the Analysis section
below are supported at least by a preponderance of the evidence. 2
ANALYSIS
The Appellant argues at page 14 that the rejection of claim 21 is
improper because the cited prior art fails to disclose the claim limitation for:
presenting a view, using at least one processor, of a personal
electronic calendar from a first source overlaid with a non-
personal electronic calendar from a second source
(emphasis added). The Appellant argues that Barnett instead discloses
selecting events from layered non-personal calendars for addition to a
personal calendar (App. Br. 14).
In contrast, the Examiner has determined that the cited claim
limitation is found in Barnett at column 10 lines 1 to 10, column 11 lines 56
to 64, column 13 lines 39 to 47, and Figures 12 and 13 (Ans. 3--4).
We agree with the Examiner. Here, the argued claim limitation
requires "presenting a view, using at least one processor, of a personal
electronic calendar from a first source overlaid with a non-personal
electronic calendar from a second source." Barnett discloses this in Figure 8
and its description at column 11 lines 55 to 65. Barnett at column 11 lines
60 to 65 discloses "allowing the user to select or de-select individual group
calendars ... 'layered' on top of other displayed events [on the] screen"
(emphasis added). The Appellant also argues in the Reply Brief at page 2
2 See Ethicon, Inc. v. Quigg, 849 F.2d 1422, 1427 (Fed. Cir. 1988)
(explaining the general evidentiary standard for proceedings before the
Patent Office).
3
Appeal2017-002679
Application 13/620,888
that Figure 8 shows a "Favorite Events" page that is not the user's personal
electronic calendar. However, Figure 8 includes the display of a particular
person's name ("Mitch Brown"), which thus shows it to be a "personal
calendar" of some kind that shows the favorite events selected for that
particular person ("Mitch Brown"). Note also that Barnett at column 3, lines
40-49 states that the "My Calendar" area is flexible and that the user can
choose from daily, weekly, or monthly views. Here, the calendar of Figure 8
is a "monthly view" of that personal calendar designated by the indicia of a
particular person's name ("Mitch Brown").
As the argued claim limitation has been shown in the prior art, the
rejection of record is sustained for claim 21.
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
We conclude that Appellant has not shown that the Examiner erred in
rejecting claims 21--42 and 44--46 under 35 U.S.C. § 102(e) as anticipated by
Barnett.
DECISION
The Examiner's rejection of claims 21--4 2 and 44--46 is sustained.
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). See
37 C.F.R. § 41.50(f).
AFFIRMED
4