Ex Parte Parulekar et alDownload PDFPatent Trial and Appeal BoardJan 27, 201612914418 (P.T.A.B. Jan. 27, 2016) Copy Citation UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE 12/914,418 10/28/2010 22879 7590 01/29/2016 HP Inc. 3390 E. Harmony Road Mail Stop 35 FORT COLLINS, CO 80528-9544 FIRST NAMED INVENTOR Subir Parulekar 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. 82264298 5757 EXAMINER RABOVIANSKI, IV AN I ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 2862 NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE 01129/2016 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): ipa.mail@hp.com barbl@hp.com yvonne.bailey@hp.com PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07) UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD Ex parte SUBIR P ARULEKAR, SANDEEP SUBHASH KHABIY A, and RAJMOHAN RAJAMARIAPP AN Appeal2013-010455 Application 12/914,418 Technology Center 2800 Before MICHAEL P. COLAIANNI, JEFFREY W. ABRAHAM and CHRISTOPHER C. KENNEDY, Administrative Patent Judges. COLAIANNI, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL Appellants appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134 from the final rejection of claims 1, 2, and 4--15. We have jurisdiction over the appeal pursuant to 3 5 U.S.C. § 6(b ). We AFFIRM. Appellants' invention is directed to time-tracking methods, systems and computer readable media for time-tracking (Spec. i-f 7, claims 1, 9, and 13). Appeal2013-010455 Application 12/914,418 Claim l is illustrative: 1. A method for time tracking, comprising: parsing contents of an application page accessed by a user; causing a display of a time tracker user interface responsive to detecting time tracking context information within the contents, wherein detecting the time tracking context information comprises a yes/no determination as to whether the user is allowed to track time for a current item and wherein the time tracker user interface indicates the current item associated with the application page and against which time can be logged; causing a display of current item description information obtained from the time tracking context information prior to logging time against the current item; logging time against the current item; adding the current item and associated logged time information to a maintained list of items against which time has been logged; and providing the items of the maintained list and associated logged time information to a time sheet application page for access by the user. Appellants appeal the following rejection: 1. Claims 1, 2, 4, 7-9, and 13-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Butera (US 2005/0187839 Al; published Aug. 25, 2005) in view of Redlich (US 2008/0154873 Al, published Jun. 26, 2008). Appellants' arguments focus on subject matter common to independent claims 1, 9, and 13 (App. Br. 9-18). We select claim 1 as representative of the grouping. The dependent claims will stand or fall with our analysis of the rejection of claim 1. Though Appellants list claims 5, 6, and 10-12 as being on appeal, Appellants do not argue the following rejections of those claims (App. Br. 9-18): 2 Appeal2013-010455 Application 12/914,418 2. Claims 5 and 6 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Butera in view ofRedlich and David (US 7,274,375 Bl, Sept. 25, 2007). 3. Claims 10-12 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Butera in view ofRedlich and Eagan (US 2012/0124005 Al published May 17, 2012). Any arguments not raised by Appellants in the principal Brief shall not be considered by the Board. 37 CPR§ 41.37(c)(iv) (2013). Accordingly, because Appellants have not shown any error with regard to the Examiner's rejections (2) and (3), our decision regarding claim 1 is dispositive of all claims on appeal. FINDINGS OF FACT AND ANALYSES We have fully considered Appellants' arguments against the Examiner's rejection of claim 1. We find ourselves in agreement with the Examiner that Butera and Redlich would have suggested the subject matter of claim 1 for the reasons given on pages 2 to 4 of the Final Action and pages 4, 5, and 15 to 17 of the Answer. We add the following analysis primarily for emphasis. The Examiner finds that Butera teaches the subject matter of claim 1, except for the steps of "parsing contents of an application page accessed by a user" and "detecting context information within the content" (Final Act. 3). The Examiner finds that Redlich teaches parsing contents of a source document (Final Act. 3). The Examiner further finds that Redlich teaches that the structure of the source document metadata and metadata data by its nature contains context information within the contents (Final Act. 3--4). 3 Appeal2013-010455 Application 12/914,418 The Examiner concludes that it would have been obvious to use Redlich's parsing and analyzing metadata for context information within the contents in Butera's method "because of the desire to preliminarily and automatically analyze the contents of the web page of interest and use the metadata to trigger the timekeeping log when appropriate (when the document or application is appropriate for billing)" (Final Act. 4). Appellants argue that the combined teachings of Butera and Redlich fail to teach or suggest "causing a display of a time tracker user interface responsive to detecting time tracking context information within the contents, where detecting the time tracking context information includes a yes/no determination as to whether a user is allowed to track time for a current item and where the time tracker user interface indicates the current item associated with the application page and against which time can be logged, and causing a display of current item description information obtained from the time tracking context information prior to logging time against the current item." (App. Br. 10). Appellants contend that Butera in paragraph 45 discloses only that a "precursor request" may prompt a user to manually select whether to bill a particular task (App. Br. 10-11). Appellants contend that Butera's manual selection is not equivalent to a step where detecting the time tracking context information includes a yes/no determination as to whether a user is allowed to track time for a current item as required by the claim. Contrary to Appellants' arguments, claim 1 does not explicitly require that detecting of time tracking context information automatically performs the yes/no determination. Rather the claim is broadly drafted and may include Butera's disclosure where after detecting a document is opened or 4 Appeal2013-010455 Application 12/914,418 task performed (Fig. 8, step 800), the professional may be inquired whether to bill time against such task or document (i.e., step 855). In other words, Butera's detection of the document or task and then prompting of the user to determine whether to bill time against the item is not excluded by the claim. Appellants argue that Butera does not describe causing a display of current item description information obtained from the time tracking context information prior to logging time against the current item (App. Br. 11 ). Butera discloses, however, that the document or task is detected and the user may be prompted to determine whether to bill time against the particular document or task (i-f 58; Fig. 8). Butera further discloses detecting the type of task or document being performed and extracting information from the task or document to include in the "Timekeeper Entry Box™" (i-f 60; Fig. 9). Accordingly, we agree with the Examiner that Butera teaches presenting the user with information about the particular task or document to see whether to bill time against the task or document before logging time. Appellants argue that Redlich generically teaches parsing contents of an application page and examining each path for context, but does not teach the time tracking context information as required by the claims (App. Br. 11-12). Appellants contend that Redlich does not describe "context" in terms of time tracking context information as presented in the claims and Specification of the present disclosure (App. Br. 12). Appellants' arguments regarding Redlich improperly attack the references individually instead of addressing what the combined teachings of Butera and Redlich would have suggested to the ordinarily skilled artisan. In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 425 (CCPA 1981). The Examiner relies on Butera to teach providing the time tracking context information and Redlich 5 Appeal2013-010455 Application 12/914,418 to teach ways to parse and manipulate the data to determine content and context. Accordingly, that Redlich does not disclose time tracking context information is not dispositive because the combined teachings of Redlich and Butera would have suggested using Redlich's data manipulating techniques to parse the content of the application page (i.e., document or task in Butera) and look for context within the content in order to present such information to the user and to use such information in setting up Butera's "Timekeeper Entry Box™". In the Reply Brief, Appellants argue that Butera teaches a process as shown in Figure 8 that has a particular order to it so that Butera teaches away from the claimed process (Reply Br. 15). Appellants contend that Butera's process requires a "Timekeeper Entry Box™" be opened contemporaneous with the opening of the document or initiation of the service/task (Reply Br. 12). Appellants contend that Butera teaches that time computation automatically starts upon opening the "Timekeeper Entry Box™". Id. Appellants contend that Butera discloses a step-by-step process where detection and extraction of the pertinent information relating to each type of search being performed for inclusion in the "Timekeeper Entry Box™" is performed after generation of the "Timekeeper Entry Box™" and after the start of the time computation (Reply Br. 14). Appellants, however, concede that Butera discloses that generation of the "Timekeeper Entry Box™" can be dependent upon whether the individual requests that the service be billed (Reply Br. 14). Appellants appear to contend that their method differs from Butera's method because the time tracking interface (i.e., the "Timekeeper Entry Box™" in Butera) is displayed in response to detecting the time tracking context information 6 Appeal2013-010455 Application 12/914,418 1 T""lt. , ' L Lr-T""i • 1 -r-i , T""lt. Tl\.A"-,' 1 , , 1 , 1 wnereas tlutera s -- 11meKeeper bntry tlox ''"' aoes not generate umess me user indicates to do so. Id. Appellants' arguments are not persuasive because the claim does not preclude the reordering or addition of steps between the parsing and causing a display of time tracker user interface responsive to detecting time tracking context information; the claim is open ended. In other words, the claim does not preclude Butera's detecting of the opening of the document or initiation of a task, presenting the user with the information to determine whether to start logging time against the document or task and, then generating the "Timekeeper Entry Box™" with the current item associated with the application page (i.e., document or task). All of Butera's steps are responsive to the initial detecting of the document or task. The presentation of the "Timekeeper Entry Box™" is based upon the detection of the document or task with its extracted information. Moreover, we note that in paragraphs 52 and 53 Butera discloses an embodiment where the time computation may start upon the individual user entering the start time along with other information. In other words, Butera discloses embodiments that are not limited to the contemporaneous starting of the time computation. Indeed, Figure 8 is described as merely "an embodiment." On this record, we affirm the Examiner's§ 103 rejection over Butera in view of Redlich. DECISION The Examiner's decision is affirmed. 7 Appeal2013-010455 Application 12/914,418 lp THvIE PERIOD No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a).ORDER AFFIRMED 8 Copy with citationCopy as parenthetical citation