Calendar Research LLC

Patent Trials and Appeals Board

Feb 13, 2020

13831758 - (D) (P.T.A.B. Feb. 13, 2020)

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.
13/831,758 03/15/2013 Michael Hunter Gray 111146-0201 5446
23392 7590 02/13/2020
Foley & Lardner LLP
3000 K STREET N.W.
SUITE 600
WASHINGTON, DC 20007-5109
EXAMINER
BYRD, UCHE SOWANDE
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
3624
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
02/13/2020 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):
ipdocketing@foley.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
____________

BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
____________

Ex parte MICHAEL HUNTER GRAY
and MICHEL BAYAN
____________

Appeal 2018-004807
Application 13/831,758
Technology Center 3600
____________

Before BRUCE T. WIEDER, AMEE A. SHAH, and
MATTHEW S. MEYERS, Administrative Patent Judges.

MEYERS, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL

STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Appellant1 appeals under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Examiner’s
rejection of claims 1–7, 9–23, 25, 26, and 29–31. We have jurisdiction
under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). An oral hearing was held on February 4, 2020.
We REVERSE.

1 We use the term “Appellant” to refer to “applicant” as defined in 37 C.F.R.
§ 1.42. Our decision references Appellant’s Appeal Brief (“Appeal Br.,”
filed August 29, 2017) and Reply Brief (“Reply Br.,” filed April 5, 2018),
and the Examiner’s Answer (“Ans.,” mailed February 7, 2018) and Final
Office Action (“Final Act.,” mailed February 1, 2017). Appellant identifies
Calendar Research LLC, as the real party in interest. Appeal Br. 2.
Appeal 2018-004807
Application 13/831,758

2
CLAIMED INVENTION
Appellant’s claims relate generally to “the field of scheduling
systems,” and more particularly, “to a scheduling system and method
incorporating an appointment negotiation.” Spec. ¶ 2.
Claims 1, 12, and 26 are the independent claims on appeal. Claim 1,
reproduced below with bracketed notations added, is illustrative of the
claimed subject matter:
1. A method for providing a scheduling service to two
remote devices, comprising:
[a] receiving a request of a first user from a first remote
device to generate an appointment request to invite a second user
to an appointment, wherein the request of the first user comprises
two or more possible appointment times suggested by the first
user for the appointment;
[b] generating, using a processor, the appointment request
to include the two or more possible appointment times as
application data for causing a graphical user interface on a
second remote device to display the two or more possible
appointment times as selectable items in the graphical user
interface;
[c] transmitting through a network the appointment
request including the two or more possible appointment times to
the second remote device;
[d] receiving a selection of two or more acceptable
appointment times from among the two or more possible
appointment times from the second remote device indicating
acceptable times for the appointment selected by the second user
from among the two or more possible appointment times
suggested by the first user, the selection of the two or more
acceptable appointment times including a ranking of desirability
for the second user of the two or more acceptable appointment
times;
[e] transmitting an indication of the selection of the two or
more acceptable appointment times including the ranking to the
first remote device;
Appeal 2018-004807
Application 13/831,758

3
[f] receiving a selection of an appointment time from
among the two or more acceptable appointment times from the
first remote device; and
[g] synchronizing the appointment between the two
remote devices such that a change in the appointment time in a
first calendar application by the first user using the first remote
device is automatically applied by a user application of the
second remote device to an appointment entry in a second
calendar application for the second user upon receiving
notification of the change;
[h] wherein the second calendar application is a different
calendar application than the first calendar application.

REJECTION
Claims 1–7, 9–23, 25, 26, and 29–31 are rejected under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a) as unpatentable over Beckhardt et al. (US 6,085,166, issued July 4,
2000) (“Beckhardt”), Clark et al. (US 2003/0004773 A1, published Jan. 2,
2003) (“Clark”), Jones et al (US 2009/0271716 A1, published Oct. 29, 2009)
(“Clark”), and Velusamy et al. (US 2011/0153380 A1, published June 23,
2011) (“Velusamy”).
ANALYSIS
Independent Claim 1 and Dependent Claims 2–7 and 9–11
We are persuaded by Appellant’s argument that the Examiner erred in
rejecting independent claim 1 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) because the
combination of Beckhardt, Clark, Jones, and Velusamy does not disclose or
suggest
receiving a selection of two or more acceptable appointment
times from among the two or more possible appointment times
from the second remote device indicating acceptable times for
the appointment selected by the second user from among the two
or more possible appointment times suggested by the first user,
the selection of the two or more acceptable appointment times
Appeal 2018-004807
Application 13/831,758

4
including a ranking of desirability for the second user of the two
or more acceptable appointment times[,]
as recited in claim 1. Appeal Br. 12–17; Reply Br. 2–4.
The Examiner maintains the rejection is proper, and cites Jones, at
paragraphs 30–32, 35, 40, Figures 5 and 6, and Claim 1, as disclosing the
argued limitation (see Final Act. 7–8). However, we agree with the
Appellant that there is nothing in the cited portions that discloses or suggests
the argued limitation.
In making this determination, we note that Beckhardt is directed to
“an electronic calendar system with group scheduling.” Beckhardt, 2:66–67.
Beckhardt discloses that when a coordinator of an event wants to schedule
an event,
the coordinator specifies the date, time, duration and selects one
or more invitees. Invitees, as detailed below, may comprise
users, resources (such as computer equipment, for example), or
rooms, for example. This information may be input to the system
through a graphical user interface, for example. The information
that is provided is then taken by the system to determine whether
that all of the selected invitees are available at the desired date,
time, and duration.
Id. at 3:5–15.
Clark is directed to “[a] scheduling system to schedule events with
one to many people using invitations with optional dates, times and locations
to determine the soonest or the best date and time along with location for the
event.” Clark, at code (57). More particularly, Clark discloses that its
program allows a user to create invitations with multiple date,
time and location options that are sent to invited participants.
Invited participants can respond by various means to choose a
best date, time and location. The program then utilizes one or
more consensus algorithms to select a date, time and location so
Appeal 2018-004807
Application 13/831,758

5
it can commit the final invitation which will be confirmed by
invited participants.
Clark ¶ 13 (emphasis added). Clark discloses that its “invitation creation
module 101” “utilize[s] the user manager module 108 to attempt to locate
the calendar and/or availability information for invited participants.” Id.
¶ 23; see also id. ¶ 30. Clark’s “response collection module 105” allows
invited particpants to “choose from options presented in the invitation to
select their preferred date and time as well as the preferred location.
Additionally, invited participants may enter suggested dates and times.” Id.
¶ 24.
Jones is directed to “[a] system and method for dynamically
scheduling a meeting time in association with an instant messaging client.”
Jones, at code (57). Jones’ system includes a “grid scheduling server” that
facilitates a grid scheduling session in real-time in conjunction
with the multiple instant messaging clients, schedules the time of
the meeting according to real-time inputs from participants on
the multiple instant messaging clients, and generates a
representation of scheduling information from a scheduling
matrix that includes a list of times arranged transversely to a list
of the participants to the meeting.
Id. ¶ 4. Jones discloses that its “grid scheduling session allows each
participant to prioritize their existing appointments and rank their available
time slots according to their preferred meeting times.” Id. ¶ 16 (emphasis
added). Jones discloses that “a user may perform an operation on the real-
time grid scheduling session 127 such as prioritize an existing appointment
or rank an available time slot.” Id. ¶ 36 (emphasis added). Once a user
provides ranking information, “the grid scheduling client 130 then
communicates the operation to the grid scheduling server 154 which, in turn,
Appeal 2018-004807
Application 13/831,758

6
communicates the same operation to all of the client computers of the other
users associated with the chat session.” Id.
Figures 3A and 3B of Jones are reproduced below.

(Figure 3A depicts “the IM interface and real-time grid scheduling
session on the client computer” (Jones ¶ 9)).
With respect to Figure 3A, Jones discloses that “date box 136 and
time slots 138 indicate the existing appointments and available time slots for
each user on the real-time scheduling session 127 according to the specific
date and the indicated time series on the specific date.” Id. ¶ 31 (emphasis
added). By right-clicking on an existing appointment, Jones enables a user
“to assign a priority to the corresponding appointment by choosing a priority
from the priority menu 148.” Id. Jones concludes that “the existing
appointment right-click menu 144 enables a user to prioritize existing
Appeal 2018-004807
Application 13/831,758

7
appointments between high priority appointments that cannot be rescheduled
and low priority appointments that can be rescheduled.” Id. (emphasis
added).

(Figure 3B depicts “the IM interface and real-time grid scheduling
session on the client computer” (Jones ¶ 9)).
With respect to Figure 3B, Jones discloses that its real-time
scheduling session 127 also includes “an available time slot right-click menu
147 . . . for ranking available time slots according to a user’s selection.” Id.
¶ 32. More particularly, Jones discloses that
[b]y right-clicking on an available time slot, a user is allowed to
assign a ranking to an available time slot by choosing a ranking
choice from the ranking menu 149. For example, a user may
have an available time slot that is preferable over other available
time slots for a meeting time, and may have other available time
slots that are yet preferable over the other time slots. Thus, the
available slot right-click menu 147 enables a user to rank
available time slots according to user preference.
Id.
Velusamy is directed to a system “for providing automated
appointment management.” Velusamy ¶ 12. More particularly, Velusamy
Appeal 2018-004807
Application 13/831,758

8
discloses that its system “employs an automated appointment management
platform 101 to provide a managed service (or hosted approach) to
coordinate the scheduling of appointments or events across the service
provider systems.” Id. ¶ 16.
We have reviewed the cited portions of Jones, as well as the cited
portions of Berkhardt, Clark, and Velusamy, and agree with Appellant that
none of the cited portions of Jones, alone or in combination, discloses or
suggests the argued limitation. Although we agree with the Examiner that
Jones discloses that its “ranking menu 149 includes a first choice, a second
choice, and so on” (Jones ¶ 32), Jones discloses that “ranking menu 149”
simply allows a user to “to assign a ranking to an available time slot.” Id.
More particularly, Jones discloses that
a user may have an available time slot that is preferable over
other available time slots for a meeting time, and may have other
available time slots that are yet preferable over the other time
slots. Thus, the available slot right-click menu 147 enables a user
to rank available time slots according to user preference.
Id. Consequently, we agree with Appellant that “[t]he time slots ranked in
Jones by each participant are not time slots suggested by anyone else, but
rather each participant chooses any time slots they want, so participants can
select entirely different time slots from each other” (Reply Br. 4 (citing
Jones ¶¶ 32, 36) (emphasis omitted)), and as such, “Jones does not describe
the ability of a second user to select and rank two or more acceptable
appointment times from among two or more possible appointment times
suggested by a first user.” Id.
In responding to Appellant’s arguments, the Examiner takes the
position that
Appeal 2018-004807
Application 13/831,758

9
Jones at 0036, describes a first user sending a scheduling request,
then at Fig. 3a, discloses that participant #4, suggest Tuesday as
a time from the 2 or more participants and the two or more time
slots. Fig. 3b discloses that each participant can select a time slot
and also they have the option to rank their choices. Therefore
Jones describes the ability of a second user to select and rank two
or more acceptable appointment times from among two or more
possible appointment times suggested by a first user.
Ans. 4–5. The Examiner also notes that Clark discloses that “[o]nce all
required participants have responded, the response collection module will
check to see if a common date and time was identified for all required
participants.” Id. at 5 (quoting Clark ¶ 32).
The difficulty with the Examiner’s current position, as noted by
Appellant (see Reply Br. 2–4), is that “Jones does not describe the ability of
a second user to select and rank two or more acceptable appointment times
from among two or more possible appointment times suggested by a first
user.” Id. at 4. The addition of Clark does not remedy this deficiency. In
this regard, Clark discloses that its “collection module 105” allows each
participant to “choose from options presented in the invitation to select their
preferred date and time as well as the preferred location,” and even allows
invited participants to “enter suggested dates and times.” Clark ¶ 24.
However, we agree with Appellant that “the Examiner’s response says
nothing about an invitee in Clark ranking acceptable appointment times.
This is because Clark does not allow for an invitee to rank acceptable
appointment times.” Reply Br. 4. Thus, the Examiner’s asserted
combination of Beckhardt, Clark, Jones, and Velusamy fails to disclose or
suggest
receiving a selection of two or more acceptable appointment
times from among the two or more possible appointment times
Appeal 2018-004807
Application 13/831,758

10
from the second remote device indicating acceptable times for
the appointment selected by the second user from among the two
or more possible appointment times suggested by the first user,
the selection of the two or more acceptable appointment times
including a ranking of desirability for the second user of the two
or more acceptable appointment times[,]
as recited in claim 1.
In view of the foregoing, we do not sustain the Examiner’s rejection
of independent claim 1 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a). For the same reasons, we
also do not sustain the Examiner’s rejection of claims 2–7 and 9–11, which
depend therefrom.

Independent Claims 12 and 26, and Dependent Claims 13–23, 25, and
29–31
Independent claims 12 and 26 include language substantially similar
to the language of independent claim 1, and stand rejected based on the same
rationale applied with respect to independent claim 1 (see Final Act. 22–23,
30). Therefore, we do not sustain the rejection of independent claims 12 and
26, and claims 13–23, 25, and 29–31, which depend therefrom, respectively,
for the same reasons set forth above with respect to independent claim 1.
CONCLUSION
In summary:
Claims
Rejected
35 U.S.C. § Reference(s)
/Basis
Affirmed Reversed
1–7, 9–23,
25, 26, 29–
31
103(a) Berkhardt,
Clark, Jones
Velusamy
1–7, 9–23,
25, 26, 29–
31
Appeal 2018-004807
Application 13/831,758

11

REVERSED