Ex Parte Wisniewski et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Mar 27, 2013

10724845 (P.T.A.B. Mar. 27, 2013)

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.
10/724,845 12/01/2003 Robert W. Wisniewski YOR920030535US1 2172
29683 7590 03/27/2013
HARRINGTON & SMITH
4 RESEARCH DRIVE, Suite 202
SHELTON, CT 06484-6212
EXAMINER
WALSH, JOHN B
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2451
MAIL DATE DELIVERY MODE
03/27/2013 PAPER
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.
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
________________

BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
________________

Ex parte ROBERT W. WISNIEWSKI and
MARY YVONNE LANZEROTTI
________________

Appeal 2010-009386
Application 10/724,845
Technology Center 2400
________________

Before JOHN A. JEFFERY, JEREMY J. CURCURI, and
DAVID C. McKONE, Administrative Patent Judges.

CURCURI, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL
Appellants appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Examiner’s
rejection of claims 1-36. App. Br. 2. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C.
§ 6(b).
Appeal 2010-009386
Application 10/724,845

2
Claims 1-14 and 16-36 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 102(e) as
anticipated by Reed (US 2002/0095454 A1; published July 18, 2002). Ans.
4-9.1
Claim 15 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as obvious over Reed
and Wolton (US 2004/0030741 A1; published Feb. 12, 2004; filed Apr. 1,
2002). Ans. 10.
We affirm-in-part.

STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Appellants’ invention relates a database agent adapted to determine if
a communication has a task tag, to transfer predetermined communication
tag information of the task tag to a database, and to automatically send a
communication based upon information stored in the predetermined
communication tag information. Abstract. Claim 1 is illustrative and
reproduced below:
1. A communication system comprising:
a storage device comprising a database configured to store
communication tag information of a task tag; and
a database agent configured to determine if a communication has the
task tag, wherein the database agent is configured to transfer predetermined
communication tag information of the task tag of the communication to the
database, and wherein the database agent is configured to automatically send
a communication based upon information stored in the predetermined
communication tag information.

1 Reed also qualifies as prior art under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b).
Appeal 2010-009386
Application 10/724,845

3
ANALYSIS
THE ANTICIPATION REJECTION
Claim 1
We agree with the Examiner’s position, with regard to claim 1, that
Reed describes all claim limitations. Ans. 4.
Appellants argue Reed does not disclose a database agent configured
to determine if a communication has a task tag; a database agent configured
to transfer predetermined communication tag information of the task tag of
the communication to the database; or a database agent configured to
automatically send a communication based upon information stored in the
predetermined communication tag information. App. Br. 8-10; see also
Reply Br. 1-6.
In response, the Examiner explains Reed discloses the disputed
limitations, and maps the recited task tag to Reed’s program/agent receiving
and processing transferred information. The Examiner further explains that
Reed’s program will store updated information in the database when
received, notify a user of updated information, and generate responses.
Ans. 11-12 (citing Reed, ¶¶32-33, 90). We agree with the Examiner.
Reed (¶32) states
The consumer program receives information from the provider
or polls a location identified by the transferred information to
determine when information has been updated by the provider.
The consumer program then retrieves the information from the
proper source and compares it to the existing information to
determine what has been updated. The consumer program
maintains a database of information from different providers.
When updated information is received, the consumer program
executes instructions associated with the information to store
the updated information, notify a user of updated information,
Appeal 2010-009386
Application 10/724,845

4
and generate responses for the consumer. The consumer
program also can transfer the information to second consumer
computer.
We are not persuaded that the Examiner erred in finding that Reed’s
consumer program receiving information from the provider to determine
when information has been updated by the provider describes a database
agent configured to determine if a communication has the task tag, as recited
by claim 1.
We also agree with the Examiner that Reed’s consumer program
executing instructions associated with the information to store the updated
information describes the database agent configured to transfer
predetermined communication tag information of the task tag of the
communication to the database, as recited by claim 1.
We further agree with the Examiner that Reed’s notifying a user of
updated information and generating responses for the consumer describes
the database agent configured to automatically send a communication based
upon information stored in the predetermined communication tag
information, as recited by claim 1.
Regarding Appellants’ arguments (Reply Br. 1-6) that the Examiner’s
interpretation of “task tag” is not reasonable, we see no error in the
Examiner’s mapping Reed’s program/agent receiving and processing
transferred information to the recited task tag.
Appellants’ Specification describes task tag icon 52 (Fig. 3) and task
tag entry window 54 (Fig. 4). See Spec., ¶¶27-31. Although this discussion
informs our construction of “task tag,” it is not limiting. Notably, Appellants
do not define the term “task tag” in the Specification, but rather describe it in
connection with preferred embodiments.
Appeal 2010-009386
Application 10/724,845

5
The term “tag” is defined, in pertinent subsense, as “5 c : something
used for identification or location.”2 Therefore, a broad, but reasonable
construction of “task tag” includes something used for identification of a
task.
With this construction, we see no error in the Examiner’s reliance on
Reed for describing the “task tag” as recited by claim 1.
Reed’s consumer program receives information from the provider to
determine when information has been updated by the provider (the received
information is used for identification of the task of updating, and thus,
includes a task tag). See Reed, ¶32.
Weighing Appellants’ arguments against the Examiner’s findings, we
conclude Appellants have not shown error in the Examiner’s anticipation
rejection based on Reed of claim 1.
Claim 2
We agree with the Examiner’s position, with regard to claim 2, that
Reed describes all claim limitations. Ans. 4.
Appellants argue the Examiner has not established that Reed discloses
a database agent configured to determine if the email has a task tag. App. Br.
11; see also Reply Br. 6-7.
In response, the Examiner explains Reed discloses the information,
including change information, can be transmitted via email. Ans. 12 (citing
Reed, ¶90); see also Reed, ¶87 (describing email as an example of a pushing
method to transfer information). We agree with the Examiner.
We agree with the Examiner that Reed’s transmitting information via
email describes the communication comprises an email and the database

2 MERRIAM WEBSTER’S COLLEGIATE DICTIONARY 1200 (10th ed. 1997).
Appeal 2010-009386
Application 10/724,845

6
agent configured to determine if the email has a task tag, as recited by claim
2. We conclude Appellants have not shown error in the Examiner’s
anticipation rejection based on Reed of claim 2.
Claim 3
We agree with the Examiner’s position, with regard to claim 3, that
Reed describes all claim limitations. Ans. 4.
Appellants argue that Reed does not disclose a task tag comprising a
task topic and a task reminder. App. Br. 11; see also Reply Br. 7-8.
In response, the Examiner explains that limitations from the
Specification are not read into the claim, and that Reed discloses attributes
of the communications object for transmission that meet the labels of a “task
topic” and a “task reminder.” Ans. 13 (citing Reed, ¶180). We agree with the
Examiner.
During examination of a patent application, a claim is given its
broadest reasonable construction “in light of the specification as it would be
interpreted by one of ordinary skill in the art.” In re Am. Acad. of Sci. Tech
Ctr., 367 F.3d 1359, 1364 (Fed. Cir. 2004) (citations omitted) (internal
quotation marks omitted). Additionally, “[t]hough understanding the claim
language may be aided by the explanations contained in the written
description, it is important not to import into a claim limitations that are not
a part of the claim.” See SuperGuide Corp. v. DirecTV Enters., Inc., 358
F.3d 870, 875 (Fed. Cir. 2004).
We additionally note that, without reciting further functionality, “task
topic” and “task reminder” are labels that merely describe the content of
data, and they therefore constitute non-functional descriptive material as
they do not further limit the claimed invention functionally. Such non-
Appeal 2010-009386
Application 10/724,845

7
functional descriptive material does not patentably distinguish over the prior
art that otherwise renders the claims unpatentable.3
We conclude Appellants have not shown error in the Examiner’s
anticipation rejection based on Reed of claim 3.
Claim 4
We agree with the Examiner’s position, with regard to claim 4, that
Reed describes all claim limitations. Ans. 4.
Appellants argue that Reed does not disclose transferring the task
topic to the database with the task reminder. App. Br. 12.
In response, the Examiner explains that limitations from the
Specification are not read into the claim, and that Reed discloses the claim
limitations. Ans. 13-14 (citing Reed, ¶180). We agree with the Examiner.
We again note that, without reciting further functionality, “task topic”
is a label that constitutes non-functional descriptive material.
We conclude Appellants have not shown error in the Examiner’s
anticipation rejection based on Reed of claim 4.
Claim 5
We agree with the Examiner’s position, with regard to claim 5, that
Reed describes all claim limitations. Ans. 5.
Appellants argue that Reed does not disclose storing the task reminder
in the database corresponding to a task topic already stored in the database.
App. Br. 12.

3 See In re Ngai, 367 F.3d 1336, 1339 (Fed. Cir. 2004); see also Ex parte
Nehls, 88 USPQ2d 1883, 1887-89 (BPAI 2008) (precedential) (discussing
cases pertaining to non-functional descriptive material).
Appeal 2010-009386
Application 10/724,845

8
In response, the Examiner explains that Reed stores updated
information into the database. Ans. 14 (citing Reed, ¶32). We note that, in
order to store updated information, corresponding information is already
stored in the database. Thus, we agree with the Examiner that Reed teaches
the claim limitations.
We again note that, without reciting further functionality, “task topic”
and “task reminder” are labels that constitute non-functional descriptive
material.
We conclude Appellants have not shown error in the Examiner’s
anticipation rejection based on Reed of claim 5.
Claim 6
We agree with the Examiner’s position, with regard to claim 6, that
Reed describes all claim limitations. Ans. 5.
Appellants argue that Reed does not disclose a database agent
configured to generate a report based upon communication tag information
stored in the database, as recited in claim 6. App. Br. 13.
In response, the Examiner explains that Reed generates reports and
notifications based upon objects/tag information stored in a database. Ans.
14 (citing Reed, ¶¶137, 164, 173). We agree with the Examiner.
We, therefore, sustain the Examiner’s rejection of claim 6.
Claim 7
We agree with the Examiner’s position, with regard to claim 7, that
Reed describes all claim limitations. Ans. 5.
Appellants argue that Reed does not disclose the database agent is
configured to automatically generate the report based upon a predetermined
event. App. Br. 14.
Appeal 2010-009386
Application 10/724,845

9
In response, the Examiner explains that Reed generates reports and
notifications when new objects arrive. Ans. 15 (citing Reed, ¶¶137, 164,
173). We agree with the Examiner.
We, therefore, sustain the Examiner’s rejection of claim 7.
Claim 8
We agree with the Examiner’s position, with regard to claim 8, that
Reed describes all claim limitations. Ans. 5.
Appellants argue that Reed does not disclose the database agent is
configured to generate the report based upon a request submitted by a user.
App. Br. 14-15.
In response, the Examiner explains that Reed’s receiving information
from the provider is based upon a request submitted by a user, and that
together with the generated report/notification meets the recited claim
limitations. Ans. 15-16 (citing Reed, ¶¶32, 33). We agree with the Examiner.
We, therefore, sustain the Examiner’s rejection of claim 8.
Claim 9
We agree with the Examiner’s position, with regard to claim 9, that
Reed describes all claim limitations. Ans. 5.
Appellants argue that Reed does not disclose communication tag
information comprising an importance factor, wherein the database agent is
configured to prioritize at least a portion of the communication tag
information based upon the importance of factors of the communication tag
information stored in the database. App. Br. 15.
In response, the Examiner explains that Reed describes component
objects having current version values for update control. Ans. 16 (citing
Reed, ¶309). We agree with the Examiner.
Appeal 2010-009386
Application 10/724,845

10
Reed’s current version values describe importance factors. Further,
Reed’s updating of communication objects based on the current version
values describes the database agent prioritizing communication tag
information based upon the importance of factors as recited in claim 9.
We, therefore, sustain the Examiner’s rejection of claim 9.
Claim 10
We agree with the Examiner’s position, with regard to claim 10, that
Reed describes all claim limitations. Ans. 5 (citing Reed, ¶¶31-35, 90-94).
Appellants argue that Reed does not disclose a database agent
configured to automatically obtain information relating to the
communication tag information from a remote computer. App. Br. 16; see
also Reply Br. 8-9.
We agree with the Examiner that Reed’s (¶32) consumer program
receiving information from the provider to determine when information has
been updated by the provider, and retrieving the information from the proper
source describes the database agent configured to automatically obtain
information relating to the communication tag information from a remote
computer.
We, therefore, sustain the Examiner’s rejection of claim 10.
Claim 11
We agree with the Examiner’s position, with regard to claim 11, that
Reed describes all claim limitations. Ans. 6.
Appellants argue that Reed does not disclose a database agent
configured to collate at least a portion of a communication tag information
stored in a database. App. Br. 16-17.
Appeal 2010-009386
Application 10/724,845

11
In response, the Examiner explains that Reed’s program/agent
compares the information to the existing information to determine what has
been updated. Ans. 18 (citing Reed, ¶32). We agree with the Examiner.
We, therefore, sustain the Examiner’s rejection of claim 11.
Claim 12
We agree with the Examiner’s position, with regard to claim 12, that
Reed describes all claim limitations. Ans. 6 (citing Reed, ¶439).
Appellants argue that Reed does not disclose communication tag
information comprising a deliverable/project tag information, wherein the
database agent is configured to transfer deliverable/project tag information
of the task tag of the communication to the database. App. Br. 18.
In response, the Examiner explains that limitations from the
Specification are not read into the claim, and that Reed discloses project
names when describing name resolution services. Ans. 18 (citing Reed,
¶439). We agree with the Examiner.
We note that, without reciting further functionality,
“deliverable/project” is a label that constitutes non-functional descriptive
material.
We conclude Appellants have not shown error in the Examiner’s
anticipation rejection based on Reed of claim 12.
Claim 13
We agree with the Examiner’s position, with regard to claim 13, that
Reed describes all claim limitations. Ans. 6, 19 (citing Reed, ¶¶31-35, 90-
94).
Appellants argue that Reed does not track progress of a task as recited
in claim 13. App. Br. 18-19.
Appeal 2010-009386
Application 10/724,845

12
We agree with the Examiner that Reed’s consumer program receiving
information (a tagged communication) from the provider to determine when
information has been updated by the provider describes a method for
automatically tracking progress of a task and tagging a communication, as
recited by claim 13. Notably, the received information is used for
identification of the task of updating, and thus, is a tagged communication.
See Reed, ¶32.
We also agree with the Examiner that Reed’s consumer program
executing instructions associated with the information to store the updated
information describes acting on the tagged communication automatically by
a database agent, as recited by claim 13. See Reed, ¶32.
We, therefore, sustain the Examiner’s rejection of claim 13.
Claim 14
We agree with the Examiner’s position, with regard to claim 14, that
Reed describes all claim limitations. Ans. 6 (citing Reed, ¶90).
Appellants argue that Reed does not disclose that the tagged
communication includes an email as recited in claim 14. App. Br. 19.
In response, the Examiner explains Reed discloses the information,
including change information, can be transmitted via email. Ans. 19 (citing
Reed, ¶90); see also Reed, ¶87 (describing email as an example of a pushing
method to transfer information). We agree with the Examiner.
We agree with the Examiner that Reed’s transmitting information via
email describes the communication includes an email communication, as
recited by claim 14.
We, therefore, sustain the Examiner’s rejection of claim 14.
Appeal 2010-009386
Application 10/724,845

13
Claim 16
We do not agree with the Examiner’s position, with regard to claim
16, that Reed describes all claim limitations. Ans. 6 (citing Reed, ¶¶90, 283,
536).
Appellants argue that Reed does not disclose that the tagged
communication includes a telephone message, as recited in claim 16. App.
Br. 20; see also Reply Br. 9.
In response, the Examiner explains Reed discloses a voice mail
message. Ans. 20 (citing Reed, ¶¶90, 283).
We are persuaded that Reed’s voice mail message does not describe
the communication includes a telephone message, as recited in claim 16. To
the extent that Reed mentions a voice mail message, the Examiner has not
explained how Reed describes that the tagged communication includes the
voice mail message.
We, therefore, do not sustain the Examiner’s rejection of claim 16.
Claim 17
We agree with the Examiner’s position, with regard to claim 17, that
Reed describes all claim limitations. Ans. 6.
Appellants argue Reed does not describe storing the task in the
database. App. Br. 21.
In response, the Examiner explains that Reed’s program will store
updated information in the database. Ans. 20-21 (citing Reed, ¶32). We
agree with the Examiner.
We, therefore, sustain the Examiner’s rejection of claim 17.
Appeal 2010-009386
Application 10/724,845

14
Claim 18
We agree with the Examiner’s position, with regard to claim 18, that
Reed describes all claim limitations. Ans. 7.
Appellants argue that Reed does not describe updating information
about the task in the database. App. Br. 21.
In response, the Examiner explains that Reed’s program will store
updated information in the database. Ans. 21 (citing Reed, ¶32). We agree
with the Examiner.
We, therefore, sustain the Examiner’s rejection of claim 18.
Claim 19
We agree with the Examiner’s position, with regard to claim 19, that
Reed describes all claim limitations. Ans. 7.
Appellants argue that Reed does not disclose generating a report, as
recited in claim 19. App. Br. 21-22.
In response, the Examiner explains that Reed generates reports and
notifications based upon objects/tag information stored in a database. Ans.
21-22 (citing Reed, ¶¶137, 164, 173, 408-12). We agree with the Examiner.
We, therefore, sustain the Examiner’s rejection of claim 19.
Claim 20
We agree with the Examiner’s position, with regard to claim 20, that
Reed describes all claim limitations. Ans. 7.
Appellants argue Reed does not suggest a group consisting of
individuals, collaborators, team leaders and managers, as recited in claim 20.
App. Br. 22.
In response, the Examiner explains that Reed discloses the claim
limitations. Ans. 22 (citing Reed, ¶5).
Appeal 2010-009386
Application 10/724,845

15
We note that claim 20 recites where the users are selected from a
group consisting of individuals, collaborators, team leaders and managers.
This claim language does not limit the claim to a particular structure. Nor
does this claim language limit the recited actions or steps of the method.
Nevertheless, we agree with the Examiner that Reed describes the recited
claim limitations, and that Reed’s users describe the recited users.
We, therefore, sustain the Examiner’s rejection of claim 20.
Claim 21
We agree with the Examiner’s position, with regard to claim 21, that
Reed describes all claim limitations. Ans. 7.
Appellants argue Reed does not disclose the users include other
computer programs, and the other computer programs produce data, as
recited in claim 21. App. Br. 22-23.
We note claim 21 describes wherein the users include other computer
programs, and wherein the other computer programs produce data including
computer usage at a present or remote site, manufacturing yield, or customer
purchasing patterns. This claim language does not limit the claim to a
particular structure. Nor does this claim language limit the recited actions or
steps of the method. Nevertheless, we agree with the Examiner that Reed
describes the recited claim limitations.
We agree with the Examiner that Reed’s (¶32) consumer and provider
programs describe the users include other computer programs, and wherein
the other computer programs produce data, as recited in claim 21.
We additionally note that, without reciting further functionality,
“computer usage,” “manufacturing yield,” or “customer purchasing
patterns” are labels that constitute non-functional descriptive material.
Appeal 2010-009386
Application 10/724,845

16
We, therefore, sustain the Examiner’s rejection of claim 21.
Claim 22
We agree with the Examiner’s position, with regard to claim 22, that
Reed describes all claim limitations. Ans. 7.
Appellants argue Reed does not suggest a group consisting of a
combination of individuals, collaborators, team leaders, managers, and other
computer programs, as recited in claim 22. App. Br. 23; see also Reply Br.
9-10.
In response, the Examiner explains that Reed discloses the claim
limitations. Ans. 23 (citing Reed, ¶5).
We note that claim 22 recites the users are selected from a group
consisting of a combination of individuals, collaborators, team leaders,
managers, and other computer programs. This claim language does not limit
the claim to a particular structure. Nor does this claim language limit the
recited actions or steps of the method. Nevertheless, we agree with the
Examiner that Reed describes the recited claim limitations.
We agree with the Examiner that Reed’s (¶5) users and Reed’s (¶32)
consumer and provider programs describe the recited group consisting of a
combination of individuals, collaborators, team leaders, managers, and other
computer programs.
We, therefore, sustain the Examiner’s rejection of claim 22.
Claim 23
We agree with the Examiner’s position, with regard to claim 23, that
Reed describes all claim limitations. Ans. 7 (citing Reed, ¶¶294, 318, 322).
Appellants argue Reed does not suggest an importance of the task on
the tag is set and negotiated by the users. App. Br. 23-26; see also Reply Br.
Appeal 2010-009386
Application 10/724,845

17
10-11. Appellants do not dispute that Reed discloses preference values for
each notification element being editable by the consumer. App. Br. 26.
In response, the Examiner explains that Reed discloses preference
values that can be edited and that the user sets the preference value by
making a choice from all possible preference values that could be set. Ans.
23-24.
We agree with the Examiner that Reed’s preference values
(importance of the task on the tag) editable (set and negotiated by the users)
by the consumer describe an importance of the task on the tag is set and
negotiated by the users.
We, therefore, sustain the Examiner’s rejection of claim 23.
Claim 24
We agree with the Examiner’s position, with regard to claim 24, that
Reed describes all claim limitations. Ans. 7 (citing Reed, ¶398).
Appellants argue that Reed does not disclose a time duration of the
task on the tag is set and negotiated by the users. App. Br. 27.
In response, the Examiner explains that limitations from the
Specification are not read into the claim, and various time durations
disclosed by Reed meet the recited limitation of a time duration of the task
on the tag is set and negotiated by the users. Ans. 24-25 (citing Reed, ¶¶128,
140, 174, 186, 198).
We agree with the Examiner that Reed’s (¶398) archiving rules
allowing control of archiving of communication objects using time intervals
describe a time duration of the task on the tag is set and negotiated by the
users, as recited by claim 24.
We, therefore, sustain the Examiner’s rejection of claim 24.
Appeal 2010-009386
Application 10/724,845

18
Claim 25
We agree with the Examiner’s position, with regard to claim 25, that
Reed describes all claim limitations. Ans. 7 (citing Reed, ¶520).
Appellants argue that Reed does not disclose merging
communications from various tasks into one communication for a single
task, as recited in claim 25. App. Br. 27-28.
In response, the Examiner explains that multiple users perform editing
and these various updates/edits are merged into a single new/updated object
that can then be distributed to all users/recipients. Ans. 25 (citing Reed,
¶¶520, 522). We agree with the Examiner.
We agree with the Examiner that Reed’s (¶¶520, 522) updates/edits
merged into a single new/updated object that can then be distributed to all
users/recipients describes merging communications from various tasks into
one communication for a single task, as recited in claim 25.
We, therefore, sustain the Examiner’s rejection of claim 25.
Claim 26
We agree with the Examiner’s position, with regard to claim 26, that
Reed describes all claim limitations. Ans. 7 (citing Reed, ¶519).
Appellants argue that Reed does not disclose separating
communications from one task into several communications for separate
tasks, as recited in claim 26. App. Br. 29-30.
In response, the Examiner explains that Reed discloses schedule
objects for schedule coordination among a group. Ans. 25 (citing Reed,
¶¶535, 539). We agree with the Examiner.
We agree with the Examiner that Reed’s (¶¶535, 539) schedule
objects for schedule coordination among a group describe separating
Appeal 2010-009386
Application 10/724,845

19
communications from one task into several communications for separate
tasks, as recited in claim 26.
We, therefore, sustain the Examiner’s rejection of claim 26.
Claim 27
We agree with the Examiner’s position, with regard to claim 27, that
Reed describes all claim limitations. Ans. 8 (citing Reed, ¶¶318, 398).
Appellants argue that Reed does not disclose monitoring a task
deadline and being proactive in sending communication to humans and
computers participating in the task. App. Br. 30-31.
In response, the Examiner explains that schedule events are
communicated to a group. Ans. 26 (citing Reed, ¶534). We agree with the
Examiner.
We agree with the Examiner that Reed’s (¶534) communicating
schedule events to a group describes monitoring a task deadline and being
proactive in sending communication to humans and computers participating
in the task.
We, therefore, sustain the Examiner’s rejection of claim 27.
Claim 28
We agree with the Examiner’s position, with regard to claim 28, that
Reed describes all claim limitations. Ans. 8 (citing Reed, ¶398).
Appellants argue that Reed does not disclose tag properties on the
communication include time to task completion, task progress, task topic,
reminder interval, and collaborator type, as recited in claim 28. App. Br. 31.
In response, the Examiner explains that Reed does disclose the
various claimed features, and that the recited tag properties appear to be
somewhat arbitrary. The Examiner notes Reed’s (¶200) editing the
Appeal 2010-009386
Application 10/724,845

20
preferences/properties for a communication. Ans. 26-27 (citing Reed, ¶¶109-
10, 113-14, 117-18, 198, 200, 394). We agree with the Examiner.
We note that, without reciting further functionality, tag properties are
labels that merely describe the content of data, and therefore constitute non-
functional descriptive material.
We, therefore, sustain the rejection of claim 28.
Claim 29
We agree with the Examiner’s position, with regard to claim 29, that
Reed describes all claim limitations. Ans. 8 (citing Reed, ¶90).
Appellants argue that Reed does not describe a tag property of a task
progress which is selected from a group consisting of previous, new, in-
progress, complete, other, as recited in claim 29. App. Br. 32.
In response, the Examiner explains that Reed discloses tagging the
communication with a property tag of a version value. Ans. 27 (citing Reed,
¶119). We agree with the Examiner.
We again note that, without reciting further functionality, tag
properties are labels that merely describe the content of data, and therefore
constitute non-functional descriptive material.
We, therefore, sustain the Examiner’s rejection of claim 29.
Claim 30
We agree with the Examiner’s position, with regard to claim 30, that
Reed describes all claim limitations. Ans. 8.
Appellants argue that the Examiner has not identified where Reed
discloses the claimed features. App. Br. 32.
In response, the Examiner explains that Reed disclosing a tag property
for name. Ans. 27 (citing Reed, ¶119). We agree with the Examiner.
Appeal 2010-009386
Application 10/724,845

21
We again note that, without reciting further functionality, tag
properties are labels that merely describe the content of data, and therefore
constitute non-functional descriptive material.
We, therefore, sustain the Examiner’s rejection of claim 30.
Claim 31
We agree with the Examiner’s position, with regard to claim 31, that
Reed describes all claim limitations. Ans. 8 (citing Reed, ¶357).
Appellants argue that Reed does not disclose permissions may be
associated with the task restricting viewing of the task, as recited in claim
31. App. Br. 33.
In response, the Examiner explains that Reed discloses permissions to
restrict viewing to users with appropriate credentials. Ans. 27-28 (citing
Reed, ¶357). We agree with the Examiner.
We agree with the Examiner that Reed’s (¶357) customized views of a
web site, IDs, and passwords describe permissions may be associated with
the task restricting viewing of the task, as recited in claim 31.
We, therefore, sustain the Examiner’s rejection of claim 31.
Claim 32
We agree with the Examiner’s position, with regard to claim 32, that
Reed describes all claim limitations. Ans. 8 (citing Reed, ¶¶90-93).
Appellants argue Reed does not disclose adding deliverable/project
information and task information to the communication, as recited in claim
32. App. Br. 34.
In response, the Examiner explains that “deliverable/project” and
“task” are merely labels for information. The Examiner further explains that
Reed discloses including a provider’s telephone number (project
Appeal 2010-009386
Application 10/724,845

22
information) and discloses change information (task information). Ans. 28
(citing Reed, ¶¶90, 91). We agree with the Examiner.
We additionally note that, without reciting further functionality,
“deliverable/project” and “task” are labels that merely describe the content
of data, and therefore constitute non-functional descriptive material.
We, therefore, sustain the Examiner’s rejection of claim 32.
Claim 33
We agree with the Examiner’s position, with regard to claim 33, that
Reed describes all claim limitations. Ans. 8-9 (citing Reed, ¶90).
Appellants argue Reed does not disclose all claim limitations. App.
Br. 34-35.
In response, the Examiner explains that Reed creates tagged
communications and that Reed stores updated information in a database
when received. Ans. 29 (citing Reed, ¶¶31-35, 90-94). We agree with the
Examiner.
We agree with the Examiner that Reed’s consumer program receiving
information (a tagged communication) from the provider to determine when
information has been updated by the provider describes a communication
system configured to attach a task tag to a communication, as recited by
claim 33. See Reed, ¶32.
We are agree with the Examiner that Reed’s consumer program
executing instructions associated with the information to store the updated
information describes a separate tracking system configured to automatically
enter predetermined information of the task tag of the communication into a
database in a storage device, as recited by claim 33. See Reed, ¶32.
We, therefore, sustain the Examiner’s rejection of claim 33.
Appeal 2010-009386
Application 10/724,845

23
Claim 34
We agree with the Examiner’s position, with regard to claim 34, that
Reed describes all claim limitations. Ans. 9 (citing Reed, ¶¶31-35, 90-94,
180).
Appellants argue that Reed does not disclose all claim limitations.
App. Br. 35-36.
In response, the Examiner explains that Reed creates tagged
communications, stores updated information in a database, and generates
responses. Ans. 30 (citing Reed, ¶¶31-35, 90-94). We agree with the
Examiner.
We agree with the Examiner that Reed’s consumer program receiving
information (a tagged communication) from the provider to determine when
information has been updated by the provider describes sending a
communication and attaching a task tag to the communication, as recited in
claim 34. See Reed, ¶32.
We also agree with the Examiner that Reed’s consumer program
executing instructions associated with the information to store the updated
information (also a tagged communication) describes recording, by an
automatic database agent, at least a portion of data in the task tag into a
database in a storage device, as recited in claim 34. See Reed, ¶32.
We further agree with the Examiner that Reed’s notifying a user of
updated information and generating responses for the consumer describe
automatically sending a communication by the automatic database agent
based, at least partially, on the data in the task tag, as recited in claim 34. See
Reed, ¶32.
We, therefore, sustain the Examiner’s rejection of claim 34.
Appeal 2010-009386
Application 10/724,845

24
Claim 35
We agree with the Examiner’s position, with regard to claim 35, that
Reed describes all claim limitations. Ans. 9 (citing Reed, ¶¶31, 90, 93, 177-
183).
Appellants argue that Reed does not disclose all claim limitations.
App. Br. 36-37.
We agree with the Examiner that Reed’s consumer program receiving
information from the provider to determine when information has been
updated by the provider describes searching a first communication to
determine if the first communication has a task tag, as recited by claim 35.
See Reed, ¶32.
We additionally note that, without reciting further functionality, “task
topic” and “task progress” are labels that merely describe the content of data,
and they therefore constitute non-functional descriptive material as they do
not further limit the claimed invention functionally.
We also agree with the Examiner that Reed’s notifying a user of
updated information and generating responses for the consumer describe
automatically sending a second communication by an automated database
agent based upon data in the task tag, as recited by claim 35. See Reed, ¶32.
We, therefore, sustain the Examiner’s rejection of claim 35.
Claim 36
We agree with the Examiner’s position, with regard to claim 36, that
Reed describes all claim limitations. Ans. 9 (citing Reed, ¶¶90, 93, 177-83).
Appellants argue that Reed does not disclose all claim limitations.
App. Br. 37.
Appeal 2010-009386
Application 10/724,845

25
We agree with the Examiner that Reed’s consumer program receiving
information (a tagged communication) from the provider to determine when
information has been updated by the provider describes creating a
communication and attaching a task tag to the communication, as recited in
claim 36. Notably, the received information is used for identification of the
task of updating, and thus, is a tagged communication. See Reed, ¶32.
We additionally note that, without reciting further functionality, “task
topic” and “task progress” are labels that merely describe the content of data,
and they therefore constitute non-functional descriptive material as they do
not further limit the claimed invention functionally.
We, therefore, sustain the Examiner’s rejection of claim 36.

THE OBVIOUSNESS REJECTION
Claim 15
We agree with the Examiner’s position, with regard to claim 15, that
Reed and Wolton collectively teach all claim limitations. Ans. 10. The
Examiner relies on Wolton for teaching instant messaging. Ans. 10 (citing
Wolton, Abstract). The Examiner reasons it would have been obvious to one
of ordinary skill in the art to provide instant messaging, as taught by Wolton,
in order to communicate quicker. Ans.10.
Appellants argue that Reed and Wolton do not teach the tagged
communication includes an instant electronic message, as recited in claim
15. App. Br. 37-38.
An argument that merely points out what a claim recites is
unpersuasive. See In re Lovin, 652 F.3d 1349, 1357 (Fed. Cir. 2011) (“[W]e
hold that the Board reasonably interpreted Rule 41.37 to require more
Appeal 2010-009386
Application 10/724,845

26
substantive arguments in an appeal brief than a mere recitation of the claim
elements and a naked assertion that the corresponding elements were not
found in the prior art.”). We are, therefore, not persuaded that the Examiner
erred in rejecting claim 15.

ORDER
The Examiner’s decision rejecting claims 1-15 and 17-36 is affirmed.
The Examiner’s decision rejecting claim 16 is reversed.
No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with
this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a)(1).

AFFIRMED-IN-PART

babc