Ex Parte Chen et al

Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences

Jan 23, 2012

11458435 (B.P.A.I. Jan. 23, 2012)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
____________
BEFORE THE BOARD OF PATENT APPEALS
AND INTERFERENCES
____________
Ex parte LI CHEN, YONGCHENG LI, and LUN XIAO
____________
Appeal 2009-013814
Application 11/458,435
Technology Center 2100
____________

Before KRISTEN L. DROESCH, DAVID M. KOHUT, and
MICHAEL R. ZECHER, Administrative Patent Judges.

ZECHER, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL
Appeal 2009-013814
Application 11/458,435

2
I. STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Appellants appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) (2002) from the
Examiner’s rejection of claims 1-4, 6-15, and 17-19. Claims 5 and 16 have
been cancelled. App. Br. 2. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b)
(2008).
We affirm.
Appellants’ Invention
Appellants invented a method, apparatus, and computer program
product for controlling and viewing appointments in a calendar and schedule
system. Spec. ¶ [0001].
Illustrative Claim
1. A method for personalized fine granularity access
control in a calendaring and scheduling (C&S) system, the
method comprising:

loading an event for inclusion in a shared calendar view;

determining on a field by field basis whether to include
portions of the event in the shared calendar view; and,

rendering the calendar view, wherein determining on a
field by field basis whether to include portions of the event in
the shared calendar view, comprises:

suppressing a description of the event from display in the
shared calendar view; and,

including in the shared calendar view a time range and
type for the event.

Prior Art Relied Upon
Jyrinki US 2007/0186151 A1 Aug. 9, 2007
(PCT filed Dec. 21, 2004)
Appeal 2009-013814
Application 11/458,435

3

Rejections on Appeal
Claims 9-11 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 101 as being directed to
non-statutory subject matter.
1
Non-Final Rej. 2; see also Fin. Rej. 2-3.
Claims 1-4, 6-9, 11-15, and 17-19 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C.
§ 102(e) as being anticipated by Jyrinki. Ans. 3-9.
Claim 10 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Jyrinki. Id. at 9-10.
Appellants’ Contentions
1. Appellants contend that independent claim 9 is not directed to
software per se because the claimed “C&S core logic coupled to a data
store” implies both functionality and structure (i.e., hardware), and the
claimed “C&S user interface” is necessarily a device that interfaces with a
user for calendaring and scheduling. Br. 6 (emphasis omitted).
2. Appellants contend that it is unclear what textual portions of
Jyrinki’s paragraph [0028] describe “determining on a field by field basis
whether to include portions of the event in the shared calendar…,” as recited
in independent claim 1. In particular, Appellants argue that the Examiner’s
analysis is inconsistent because the Examiner asserts that Jyrinki’s calendar
notes correspond to both the claimed “event” and “field.” Moreover, upon
reviewing the textual portions of Jyrinki relied upon by the Examiner,
Appellants allege that they were unable to ascertain how Jyrinki describes

1
Although the Grounds of Rejection section in the Answer does not include
a specific statement and corresponding discussion pertaining to this rejection
(see Ans. 3), both the Appellants and Examiner provide arguments with
respect to such rejection. See Br. 5-10; Ans. 10-11. We therefore presume
that the rejection of claims 9-11 under 35 U.S.C. § 101 as being directed to
non-statutory subject matter is properly before us on appeal.
Appeal 2009-013814
Application 11/458,435

4
suppressing a description of the event while at the same time including a
type for the event in the shared view, as claimed. Id. at 11-13.
Examiner’s Findings and Conclusions
1. The Examiner finds that independent claim 9 does not specify
that the claimed invention includes hardware and, therefore, the language of
the claim merely describes a computer program per se. Ans. 10.
2. The Examiner finds that Jyrinki’s calendar notes have fields
that describe events and such fields contain different details. In particular,
the Examiner finds that the examples set forth in Jyrinki’s paragraph [0039]
describe suppressing calendar notes related to the same event, thereby
providing field by field suppression, as claimed. Moreover, the Examiner
finds that Jyrinki’s paragraph [0039] discloses that it is possible to not show
some words of the shared calendar content, even though a corresponding
calendar note was associated with a work related calendar profile. The
Examiner finds that this portion of Jyrinki also describes not sharing certain
fields within a calendar note. Id. at 11-12.

II. ISSUES
1. Did the Examiner err in finding that claims 9-11 are directed to
non-statutory subject matter? In particular, the issue turns on whether the
“data processing system…” and corresponding “C&S core logic coupled to a
data store of event,” “C&S user interface,” and “access control logic…”
recited in independent claim 9 can be construed as software per se.
2. Did the Examiner err in finding that Jyrinki describes the
following claim limitations recited in independent claim 1:
Appeal 2009-013814
Application 11/458,435

5
(a) “determining on a field by field basis whether to include
portions of the event in the shared calendar view;”
(b) “suppressing a description of the event from display in the
shared calendar view;” and
(c) “including in the shared calendar view a time range and type for
the event.”

III. FINDINGS OF FACT (“FF”)
Jyrinki
FF 1. Jyrinki’s figure 2 illustrates a communication system with a
terminal (100) and remote device (102). ¶ [0022]. In particular, Jyrinki
discloses that the terminal (100) shares calendar content by transferring such
content to the remote device (102). Jyrinki discloses that it is possible for
the remote device (102) to have limited access rights to both the terminal
(100) and the calendar content. That is, Jyrinki discloses that the user profile
or selected calendar profile of the terminal (100) can define how the terminal
(100) displays the calendar notes of the calendar content on the remote
device (102). For example, if the calendar profile of the calendar content is
work-related, Jyrinki discloses that the terminal (100) does not include the
calendar notes related to free time in the calendar content transmitted to the
remote device (102). ¶ [0028].
FF 2. Jyrinki’s figure 4B illustrates calendar content (402) and the
time-bound calendar notes (400B, 402B, 404B, 406B, 408B, 410B, 412B,
414B, and 416B). ¶ [0037]. In particular, Jyrinki disclose that the calendar
note (406A) “TRAINING COURSE” illustrated in figure 4A corresponds to
calendar note (406B) “BUSY” in the calendar content (402) illustrated in
Appeal 2009-013814
Application 11/458,435

6
figure 4B. Moreover, Jyrinki discloses that the calendar note (414A)
“MEETING WITH MR T” illustrated in figure 4A corresponds to calendar
note (414B) “IN A MEETING,” illustrated in figure 4B, whereby certain
details related to the meeting are not shared with the recipient. ¶ [0039].

IV. ANALYSIS
35 U.S.C. § 101 Rejection
Claims 9-11
We find error in the Examiner’s rejection of claims 9-11 as being
directed to non-statutory subject matter. In particular, independent claim 9
recites, inter alia, “[a]…data processing system…” and corresponding
“C&S core logic coupled to a data store of events,” “C&S user interface,”
and “access control logic….”
We agree with Appellants that the claimed “C&S core logic coupled
to a data store of events” implies structure (i.e., hardware), such as a
database. See Br. 6 (emphasis omitted). Moreover, we find that the claimed
“C&S user interface” amounts to a device or machine
2
because it implicates
the use of a computer monitor that allows a prospective user to interface
with the both the claimed “C&S core logic” and “data store.” Therefore,
since the claimed features include hardware (i.e., database and machine), we
find that the Examiner improperly construed independent claim 9, and the

2
“[A] machine is a concrete thing, consisting of parts, or of certain devices
and combination of devices. This includes every mechanical device or
combination of mechanical powers and devices to perform some function
and produce a certain effect or result.” In re Ferguson, 558 F.3d 1359, 1364
(Fed. Cir. 2009) (quoting In re Nuijten, 500 F.3d 1346, 1355 (Fed. Cir.
2007), reh'g denied en banc, 515 F.3d 1361 (Fed. Cir. 2008), and cert.
denied, 129 S. Ct. 70 (2008)) (internal quotation marks omitted).
Appeal 2009-013814
Application 11/458,435

7
claims depending therefrom, as software per se. Consequently, we cannot
sustain the Examiner’s rejection of claims 9-11 under 35 U.S.C. § 101 as
being directed to non-statutory subject matter.
35 U.S.C. § 102(e) Rejection—Jyrinki
Claim 1
We do not find error in the Examiner’s anticipation rejection of
independent claim 1. Independent claim 1 recites, inter alia: 1)
“determining on a field by field basis whether to include portions of the
event in the shared calendar view;” 2) “suppressing a description of the
event from display in the shared calendar view;” and 3) “including in the
shared calendar view a time range and type for the event.”
At the outset, we agree with the Examiner that Jyrinki’s disclosure of
a terminal not sharing calendar notes with a remote device (FF 1) describes
determining whether to render portions of an event in a shared calendar
viewed on the remote device. See Ans. 4 and 11. We also agree with the
Examiner that Jyrinki’s examples pertaining to not sharing certain meeting
details with a potential recipient (FF 2) amounts to determining whether to
share portions of an event, such as the subject meeting, whom the meeting is
with, the type of meeting, etc., with the recipient viewing a shared calendar.
See Ans. 12. That is, we find that Jyrinki’s disclosure determines, on a field
by field basis (e.g., subject of the meeting, meeting type, etc.), whether to
include portions of an event in a shared calendar. FFs 1-2. Thus, we find
that Jyrinki describes “determining on a field by field basis whether to
include portions of the event in the shared calendar view,” as recited in
independent claim 1.
Appeal 2009-013814
Application 11/458,435

8
Moreover, we find that Jyrinki’s examples pertaining to not sharing
certain meeting details with a potential recipient (FF 2) also amounts to
determining whether to suppress descriptions of an event, such as the subject
of the meeting, meeting type, etc., from a shared calendar viewed by the
recipient. Thus, we find that Jyrinki describes “suppressing a description of
the event from display in the shared calendar view,” as claimed. Further, we
find that Jyrinki’s shared calendar includes both time-bounded calendar
notes and corresponding calendar content, such as meeting details (e.g.,
training course) (FF2), amounts to a shared calendar that includes both a
time range and an event type. Thus, we find that Jyrinki also describes
“including in the shared calendar view a time range and type for the event,”
as claimed. It follows that the Examiner has not erred in finding that Jyrinki
anticipates independent claim 1.
Claims 2-4, 6-9, 11-15, and 17-19
Appellants do not provide separate and distinct arguments for
patentability with respect to independent claims 9 and 12, and dependent
claims 2-4, 6-8, 11, 13-15, and 17-19. See Br. 10-14. Consequently, we
accept Appellants’ grouping of independent claims 9 and 12, and dependent
claims 2-4, 6-8, 11, 13-15, and 17-19, with independent claim 1. Id. at 13.
Therefore, independent claims 9 and 12, and dependent claims 2-4, 6-8, 11,
13-15, and 17-19, fall with independent claim 1. See 37 C.F.R.
§ 41.37(c)(1)(vii).
35 U.S.C. § 103(a) Rejection—Jyrinki
Claim 10
Appellants offer the same arguments set forth in response to the
anticipation rejection of independent claim 1 to rebut the obviousness
Appeal 2009-013814
Application 11/458,435

9
rejection of dependent claim 10. See Br. 13-14. We have already addressed
these arguments in our discussion of independent claim 1, and we found
them unpersuasive. Therefore, the Examiner has not erred in concluding
that Jyrinki renders dependent claim 10 unpatentable.

V. CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
1. The Examiner has erred in rejecting claims 9-11 as being
directed to non-statutory subject matter under 35 U.S.C. § 101.
2. The Examiner has not erred in rejecting claims 1-4, 6-9, 11-15,
and 17-19 as being anticipated under 35 U.S.C. § 102(e).
3. The Examiner has not erred in rejecting claim 10 as being
unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a).

VI. DECISION
1. We reverse the Examiner’s decision to reject claims 9-11 as
being directed to non-statutory subject matter under 35 U.S.C. § 101.
2. We affirm the Examiner’s decision to reject claims 1-4, 6-9, 11-
15, and 17-19 as being anticipated under 35 U.S.C. § 102(e).
3. We affirm the Examiner’s decision to reject claim 10 as being
unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a).
Since we have affirmed at least one ground of rejection with respect to
each claim on appeal, the Examiner’s decision is affirmed. See 37 C.F.R.
§ 41.50(a)(1).
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)(iv).

Appeal 2009-013814
Application 11/458,435

10
AFFIRMED

ke