Ex Parte LU

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Oct 17, 2017

12686162 (P.T.A.B. Oct. 17, 2017)

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.
12/686,162 01/12/2010 LARRY L. LU 19487.199.1.1 8985
107193 7590 10/19/2017
Keller Jolley Preece/Facebook
1010 North 500 East
Suite 210
North Salt Lake, UT 84054
EXAMINER
MEINECKE DIAZ, SUSANNA M
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
3683
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
10/19/2017 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
gj olley @ kj pip. com
tkusitor@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
Appeal 2015-007842
Application 12/686,162
Technology Center 3600
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 Appellant1 seeks our review under 35 U.S.C. § 134 of the Final
Rejection of claims 1—5, 8—13, 18, and 23—27, which are all the claims
pending in the application. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
SUMMARY OF THE DECISION
We REVERSE.
1 The real party in interest is Facebook, Inc., of Menlo Park, California
(App. Br. 1).
Appeal 2015-007842
Application 12/686,162
THE INVENTION
The Appellant’s claimed invention is directed to electronic calendars
including event information and to calendar overlays (Spec. 1:8—10). Claim
1, reproduced below, is representative of the subject matter on appeal.
1. A method comprising:
receiving, by a computing device comprising at least one
processor and from a user, a request to access a published
electronic calendar comprising a plurality of public events;
accessing, by the computing device, the requested
published electronic calendar comprising the plurality of public
events;
displaying, to the user by way of a client device, a
graphical user interface comprising a calendar view for a time
period that (i) contains one or more public events from the
plurality of public events of the accessed published electronic
calendar overlaid with one or more personal events from a
plurality of personal events of a personal electronic calendar
maintained by the user, and (ii) visually distinguishes between
the one or more public events of the accessed published
electronic calendar and the one or more personal events;
receiving, from the user and by way of the graphical user
interface, a request to add a particular public event from the one
or more public events of the accessed published electronic
calendar to the personal electronic calendar;
adding, in response to the received request, the particular
public event to the personal events in the personal electronic
calendar;
dereferencing, in response to user input, the accessed
published electronic calendar from the graphical user interface,
causing the one or more public events to no longer be overlaid
with the one or more personal events from the plurality of
personal events of the personal electronic calendar;
continuing to present, after dereferencing of the
published electronic calendar, the added particular public event;
2
Appeal 2015-007842
Application 12/686,162
detecting an update to the dereferenced published
electronic calendar that affects the added particular public
event; and
updating the added particular public event in accordance
with the detected update to the dereferenced published
electronic calendar.
THE REJECTION
The following rejection is before us for review2:
Claims 1—5, 8—13, 18, and 23—27 are rejected under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a) as unpatentable over Barnett (US 6,369,840 Bl; issued Apr. 9,
2002), Bassett (US 2002/0196280 Al; published Dec. 26, 2002), and Zey
(US 6,611,275 Bl; issued Aug. 26, 2003).
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 evidence3.
ANALYSIS
The Appellant argues that the rejection of claim 1 is improper because the
cited prior art fails to disclose the claim limitation for “updating the added
particular public event in accordance with the detected update to the
2 The rejections under 35 U.S.C. § 101, 35 U.S.C. § 112, first paragraph, and
35 U.S.C. § 112, second paragraph, have been withdrawn (Ans. 2).
3 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
Appeal 2015-007842
Application 12/686,162
dereferenced published electronic calendar” (App. Br. 20-22, Reply Br. 3—
6).
In contrast, the Examiner first interprets “updating,” as recited in
claim 1, as not requiring an update to the personal electronic calendar (see
Ans. 15 (“the claim[] do[es] not recite that the update of the added particular
public event is actually reflected in the personal electronic calendar”). In the
Examiner’s view, “updating” includes updating the dereferenced published
electronic calendar without updating the personal electronic calendar (see
id.).
Applying this interpretation, the Examiner finds that the argued claim
limitation is shown by Zey in the Abstract and at col. 6:20—67 (Ans. 7, 15—
17; see also Final Act. 14—15). In the Answer, the Examiner also cites
Bassett at paras. 58, 63, and 65, and Barnett at col. 8:41—55, in reference to
this claim limitation (Ans. 15, 16).
We agree with the Appellant. Initially, we disagree with the
Examiner’s contention in the Answer at page 15 that the “that the claims do
not recite that the update of the added particular public event is actually
reflected in the personal electronic calendar.” Here, claim 1 recites “adding
. . . the particular public events in the personal electronic calendar.'1'’ Thus,
‘ ‘'updating the added particular event'’ would be considered in the scope of
the claim to refer to that added event in the personal electronic calendar.
For at least this reason, we agree with Appellant that the Examiner
erred in finding that Zey describes the argued limitation. For example, Zey
describes one calendar, i.e., a change maintenance calendar, for
communicating and scheduling change requests (see, e.g., Zey col. 5:58—col.
6,1. 67). A requestor selects a button on the calendar to submit a
4
Appeal 2015-007842
Application 12/686,162
maintenance request {id. col. 5,1. 66-col. 6,1. 11). A change manager
manages changes of status for the submitted maintenance request, such as an
approval {id. col. 6:31—34). Yet updating a single change maintenance
calendar based on submitted change requests, as described by Zey, fails to
teach or suggest updating a first calendar (i.e., “updating the added particular
public event [in a personal electronic calendar]”) based on an update to a
second calendar (i.e., “in accordance with the detected update to the
dereferenced published electronic calendar”), as required by claim 1.
Moreover, Zey at col. 6:20-67 fails to disclose that the claimed
“updating” is done in “accordance with the detected update to the
dereferenced published electronic calendar,” as required by claim 1. Instead,
Zey’s updating is done only when approved by a change manager (i.e., an
administrator) who makes decisions on updates to the schedule {see Zey at
col. 3:15—25 (describing that the change manager is a human administrator
who “is granted rights to change status information associated with the
change requests”).
Bassett at paras. 58, 63, and Barnett at col. 8:41—55 also fail to
disclose that the argued claim limitation for “updating” is done in
“accordance with the detected update to the dereferenced published
electronic calendar.” Bassett at para. 65 does disclose a push in response to
an update, but there is no disclosure relating to the “dereferenced published
electronic calendar.” Barnett at col. 8:41—55 describes a personal calendar
for a user but, like Bassett, there is no disclosure relating to any
“dereferenced published electronic calendar.” Further, in addition to not
disclosing the claimed updating, as recited in claim 1, the rejection lacks
articulated reasoning for making the combination without impermissible
5
Appeal 2015-007842
Application 12/686,162
hindsight to meet the cited claim limitation. For these reasons, the rejection
of claim 1 and its dependent claims is not sustained. Claim 23 contains a
similar limitation, and the rejection of this claim and its dependent claims is
not sustained for these same reasons.
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
We conclude that Appellant has shown that the Examiner erred in
rejecting claims 1—5, 8—13, 18, and 23—27 are rejected under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a) as unpatentable over Barnett, Bassett, and Zey.
DECISION
The Examiner’s rejection of claims 1—5, 8—13, 18, and 23—27 is
reversed.
REVERSED
6