Ex Parte Beers et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Aug 9, 2016

12936159 (P.T.A.B. Aug. 9, 2016)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE
12/936, 159 12/10/2010
22879 7590 08/11/2016
HP Inc,
3390 E. Harmony Road
Mail Stop 35
FORT COLLINS, CO 80528-9544
FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
Ted Beers
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.
82243247 1153
EXAMINER
LIN, SHERMAN L
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2447
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
08/11/2016 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)
U-NITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte TED BEERS, MARKE. GORZYNSKI,
APRIL S. MITCHELL, LONNIE D. MANDIGO,
KENTON P. O'HARA, JON A. BREWSTER, and
MICHAEL D. DEROCHER
Appeal2014-005919
Application 12/936, 159
Technology Center 2400
Before JEFFREY A. STEPHENS, CARL L. SILVERMAN, and
JAMES W. DEJMEK, Administrative Patent Judges.
SILVERMAN, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
Appellants 1 seek our review under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Final
Rejection of claims 1-20. Final Act. 2. We have jurisdiction under 35
U.S.C. § 6(b).
We affirm.
1 The real party in interest is identified as Hewlett-Packard Development
Company, LP. App. Br. 3.
Appeal2014-005919
Application 12/936, 159
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
The invention relates to event management wherein an overlap is
detected between events and a communication is provided to remediate the
overlap to one or more event attendees. Abstract. Claim 1, reproduced
below, is exemplary of the matter on appeal:
1. A system comprising:
a network interface; and
an event management system communicated with the network
interface and configured to detect an overlap between a first event that
is in progress and a second event that is scheduled to begin after the
first event, the first event including a first set of event endpoints
configured to provide a first set of media streams to a first set of
attendees and the second event including a second set of event
endpoints configured to provide a second set of media streams to a
second set of attendees;
wherein the event management system is configured to provide
a first communication intended to remediate the overlap to at least one
of the first set of attendees using the network interface and a respective
one of the first set of event endpoints of the first event that is in
progress.
App. Br. 15 (Claims App.).
REJECTION
Claims 1-20 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Hesse (US 2003/0174826 Al; published Sept. 18, 2003)
("Hesse") in view ofBieselin et al. (US 2006/0047557 Al; published
Mar. 2, 2006) ("Bieselin"), and Malik (US 2004/0078444 Al; Apr. 22,
2004) ("Malik"). Final Act. 2-10.
2
Appeal2014-005919
Application 12/936, 159
ANALYSIS
Appellants argue Bieselin teaches "the organizer is simply alerted that
no combination of persons can be found to achieve a quorum for the
conference" but "does not disclose providing a 'first communication
intended to remediate an overlap' (between a first event that is in progress
and a second event that is scheduled to begin after the first event)." App.
Br. 10; see also Reply Br. 2-3. Appellants further argue Bieselin teaches
only the organizer is alerted, but does not disclose "at least one of the first
set of attendees" as being alerted. App. Br. 10-11; see also Reply Br. 3.
Appellants also argue Bieselin teaches the organizer is alerted while the
conference is being planned or scheduled, but "does not disclose being
alerted while the conference 'is in progress."' App. Br. 11.
The Examiner finds Bieselin teaches detecting an overlap between
commitments because an acceptable limit of persons with other
commitments could not be established. Ans. 12 (citing Bieselin i-f 79;
Fig. 3). Specifically, Bieselin teaches "the organizer is alerted that no
combination of available persons or persons with lower priority
commitments can be found to achieve a quorum for the conference within
the limits specified" and "[t]he organizer is invited to change the request by
changing the definition of a quorum or the acceptable limits for the
conference." Id.
Regarding the claim term "overlap" the Examiner finds:
As recited by the appellant in the original disclosure page 2 lines 1 7-
22: "the term overlap refers to a commonality of resources between
two or more events that may prevent one or more of the events from
proceeding as currently defined by the respective registered event
specifications for the one or more events. The commonality may
include an event endpoint, an event attendee, an event resource, or at
3
Appeal2014-005919
Application 12/936, 159
least a network resource". The examiner reasons that Bieselin provides
an alert to a meeting organizer based on an overlap or commonality of
an event attendee by detecting that a user has a higher priority
commitment (rather than a lower priority commitment that can be
bypassed). The alert is intended to allow the meeting organizer to
reschedule.
Ans. 12.
We agree with the Examiner's findings and interpretation of the term
"overlap." Appellants present no persuasive evidence that the Examiner's
interpretation is unreasonable or overbroad. Claim terms in a patent
application are given the broadest reasonable interpretation consistent with
the Specification, as understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. In re
Crish, 393 F.3d 1253, 1256 (Fed. Cir. 2004). However, great care should be
taken to avoid reading limitations of the Specification into the claims. E-
Pass Techs., Inc. v. 3Com Corp., 343 F.3d 1364, 1369 (Fed. Cir. 2003).
The Examiner finds, and we agree, Bieselin' s teaching is not limited
to alerting only the organizer because the meeting organizer may also be an
event attendee. Ans. 12-13 (citing Bieselin i-f 55, 11. 11-14, describing
groups 0 and M).
Appellants argue Malik relates to merging of independent instant
messaging chat sessions in which two or more independent chat sessions are
merged into a single chat session and does not disclose a second event that is
scheduled to begin after the first event. App. Br. 11 (citing Malik i-f 57); see
also Reply Br. 4. Appellants further argue Malik teaches asking the
recipient whether the latter sender may join the chat session between the
recipient and the earlier sender, not providing "'a first communication
intended to remediate an overlap' (between a first event that is in progress
4
Appeal2014-005919
Application 12/936, 159
and a second event scheduled to begin after the first event)." App. Br.11-12
(citing Malik iTiT 111, 112).
The Examiner finds Malik teaches an earlier instant messaging
session and a later sender initiating a later instant messaging session while
the recipient is still engaged in the earlier session and, in order to avoid
disruption of both events, Malik teaches merging the two instant messaging
sessions to the participant commonly engaged for instant messaging by two
different senders. Ans. 14 (citing Malik iT 112; Fig. 9). The Examiner finds,
and we agree, in addition to Malik' s teaching, Hesse teaches scheduling
overlapping conferences wherein the scheduled conferences may be partially
overlapping and, therefore, one must be scheduled before the other. Ans. 15
(citing Hesse iT 7).
Regarding Appellants' argument Malik does not teach providing "a
first communication intended to remediate an overlap (between a first
event ... ),"the Examiner finds, and we agree, Malik teaches "providing a
prompt [a communication] to a conflicted recipient already engaged in an
interaction with an earlier sender, wherein the prompt both notifies the
conflicted recipient of a later sender/interaction and whether the user would
like to merge the two interactions." Ans. 16-17.
We agree with the above Examiner's findings, and the Examiner's
findings that the combination of Hesse, Bieselin, and Malik teaches the
limitations of claim 1, the modifications to the individual references would
have yielded predictable results, and one of ordinary skill in the art would
have been motivated to improve communication flexibility and avoid
disruption due to overlap. Final Act. 2-5; Ans. 11-17.
5
Appeal2014-005919
Application 12/936, 159
Appellants argue the references individually whereas the rejection is
based on the combination of the references. In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 426
(CCP A 1981) ("[O]ne cannot show nonobviousness by attacking references
individually where, as here, the rejections are based on combinations of
references" (citations omitted)); In re Merck & Co., Inc., 800 F.2d 1091,
1097 (Fed. Cir. 1986).
The test for obviousness is not whether the features of a secondary
reference may be bodily incorporated into the structure of the primary
reference; nor is it that the claimed invention must be expressly suggested in
any one or all of the references. Rather, the test is what the combined
teachings of the references would have suggested to those of ordinary skill
in the art. See Keller, 642 F.2d at 425.
As stated by the Supreme Court, the Examiner's obviousness rejection
must be based on
some articulated reasoning with some rational underpinning to
support the legal conclusion of obviousness .... [H]owever, the
analysis need not seek out precise teachings directed to the
specific subject matter of the challenged claim, for a court can
take account of the inferences and creative steps that a person of
ordinary skill in the art would employ.
KSR Int'! Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 418 (2007) (quoting In re Kahn,
441 F.3d 977, 988 (Fed. Cir. 2006)).
The Examiner's findings are reasonable because the skilled artisan
would "be able to fit the teachings of multiple patents together like pieces of
a puzzle" since the skilled artisan is "a person of ordinary creativity, not an
automaton." KSR, 550 U.S. at 420-21.
6
Appeal2014-005919
Application 12/936, 159
On this record, Appellants do not present sufficient evidence that the
combination of the cited references was "uniquely challenging or difficult
for one of ordinary skill in the art" or "represented an unobvious step over
the prior art." Leapfrog Enters., Inc. v. Fisher-Price, Inc., 485 F.3d 1157,
1162 (Fed. Cir. 2007) (citing KSR, 550 U.S. at 418-19).
In view of the above, we sustain the rejection of claim 1, and
independent claims 9, 14, and 19, which recite similar limitations as claim 1
and are argued together with claim 1 (App. Br. 9-12). We also sustain the
rejection of dependent claims 2-8, 11, 13, 15-18, and 20 as these claims are
not argued separately. See 37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(l)(iv).
Regarding dependent claim 10, we are not persuaded by Appellants'
argument that Malik does not teach "wherein the overlap is based on a
commonality of resources between the first and second events" because
Malik simply merges two independent chat sessions. App. Br. 13. As
discussed supra regarding claim 1, the term "overlap" includes "an event
attendee" and the Examiner finds, and we agree, "that the shared recipient
with the earlier and latter IM conversations is a commonality of resources
since the shared recipient is a desired attendee of both interactions." Ans.
17.
Regarding dependent claim 12, we are not persuaded by Appellants'
argument that Bieselin does not teach "detecting the overlap in response to
at least one of the second set of attendees checking in for the second event."
App. Br. 13. The Examiner finds, and we agree, acceptance by an attendee
for a conference that breaks a prior commitment is a check in for the event,
and, in response to the user accepting a conference that breaks a prior
commitment, the organizer may be notified. Ans. 18 (citing Bieselin i-f 63).
7
Appeal2014-005919
Application 12/936, 159
The Examiner's findings are reasonable, Appellants' argument regarding
claim 12 in the Appeal Brief is conclusory, and we find no argument present
in the Reply Brief. In addition, no persuasive argument is presented that the
claim requires the checking in must be done at the time of the event.
DECISION
We affirm the Examiner's decision rejecting claims 1-20.
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).
AFFIRMED
8