Ex Parte Chen et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Dec 28, 2018

13231051 (P.T.A.B. Dec. 28, 2018)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE
13/231,051
58139 7590
IBM CORP. (WSM)
c/o WINSTEAD P.C.
P.O. BOX 131851
DALLAS, TX 75313
09/13/2011
01/02/2019
FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
Feng-Wei Chen
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.
RSW920110074US1 2602
EXAMINER
SMITH, BENJAMIN J
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2144
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
01/02/2019 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):
patdocket@winstead.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte FENG-WEI CHEN, JOHN R. HIND,
JOSEPH D. JOHNSON, and YONGCHENG LI 1
Appeal2017-001769
Application 13/231,051
Technology Center 2100
Before CAROLYN D. THOMAS, JEREMY J. CURCURI, and
IRVINE. BRANCH, 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 1-22. Non-Final Act. 1. We have jurisdiction under
35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
Claims 1-3, 5, 7, 9-11, 13, 15-18, 20, and 22 are rejected under pre-
AIA 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as obvious over Baird (US 2009/0313601 Al; Dec.
17, 2009), Forstall '093 (US 2007/0266093 Al; Nov. 15, 2007), Forstall
'291 (US 2007/0101291 Al; May 3, 2007), and Bodart (US 2007/0043687
Al; Feb. 22, 2007). Non-Final Act. 3-10.2
1 According to Appellants, the real party in interest is International Business
Machines Corporation. See Appeal Br. 1.
2 Forstall '093 incorporates Forstall '291 by reference. See Forstall '093
Appeal2017-001769
Application 13/231,051
Claims 1-3, 5, 7, 9-11, 13, 15-18, 20, and 22 are rejected under pre-
AIA 35 U.S.C. § I03(a) as obvious over Baird, Forstall '093, Forstall '291,
and Ashton (US 2007/0203735 Al; Aug. 30, 2007). Non-Final Act. 10-22.
Claim 4, 12, and 19 are rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. § I03(a) as
obvious over Baird, Forstall '093, Forstall '291, Bodart or Ashton, and Xiao
(US 2009/0210807 Al; Aug. 20, 2009). Non-Final Act. 17-18.
Claims 6, 14, and 21 are rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. § I03(a) as
obvious over Baird, Forstall '093, Forstall '291, Bodart or Ashton, and
Michel (US 2008/0115196 Al; May 15, 2008). Non-Final Act. 18-20.
Claim 8 is rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. § I03(a) as obvious over
Baird, Forstall '093, Forstall '291, Bodart or Ashton, and Jeide (US
2009/0247134 Al; Oct. 1, 2009). Non-Final Act. 20-22.
We reverse.
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Appellants' invention relates to "integrating a calendaring system with
a mashup page containing widgets to provide information regarding the
calendared event, both before, during and after the calendared event." Spec.
,r 1. Claim 1 is illustrative and reproduced below:
1. A method for integrating a calendaring system with a mashup
page, the method comprising:
accessing calendar data used in creating or editing an entry in a
calendar;
creating said mashup page;
,r 15. For convenience, like the Examiner, we refer to the applications
individually.
2
Appeal2017-001769
Application 13/231,051
providing a plurality of different widgets on said mashup page,
wherein each of said plurality of widgets use said accessed calendar data to
provide different information to a recipient of said calendar entry;
saving said mashup page associated with said calendar entry; and
transmitting, by a processor of a mashup server, said mashup page
along with said calendar entry to one or more recipients of said calendar
entry.
PRINCIPLES OF LAW
We review the appealed rejections for error based upon the issues
identified by Appellants, and in light of the arguments and evidence
produced thereon. Ex parte Frye, 94 USPQ2d 1072, 107 5 (BP AI 2010)
(precedential).
ANALYSIS
THE OBVIOUSNESS REJECTION OF CLAIMS 1-3, 5, 7, 9-11, 13, 15-18, 20, AND
22 OVER BAIRD, FORSTALL '093, FORSTALL '291, AND BODART
Findings and Contentions
The Examiner finds Baird, Forstall '093, Forstall '291, and Bodart
teach all limitations of claim 1. Non-Final Act. 4--10.
In particular, the Examiner find Baird teaches "transmitting, by a
processor of a mashup server, said mashup page ... with said calendar entry
to one or more recipients of said calendar entry," as recited in claim 1.
Non-Final Act. 5 (emphasis added) (citing Baird ,r,r 39, 48, 70, 76, 90-92,
112, 122, 125). According to the Examiner, "[a]ny mash-up that transmits a
calendar mash-up or widget would have to transmit a calendar entry; The
3
Appeal2017-001769
Application 13/231,051
claims do not recite what a 'calendar entry' is." Non-Final Act. 5. The
Examiner further finds Forstall '093 teaches the "transmitting" limitation.
See Non-Final Act. 6 (citing Forstall '093 ,r 77) ("send widget as attachment
with part information"); see also Ans. 20-21 ("Forstall I [(Forstall '093)]
sending an email with a party planning widget that has information about the
party reads on appellant's claim limitation.").
Among other arguments, Appellants argue the following principal
argument with respect to the "transmitting" limitation:
There is no language in the cited passages of Baird and
Forstall I [(Forstall '093)] that teaches transmitting the mashup
page along with the calendar entry. The Examiner had previously
cited to paragraphs [0082 and 0105] ofForstall I as teaching the
aspect of a calendar entry. Office Action (12/24/2014), page 8;
Office Action (2/25/2016), page 6. As discussed in Forstall I, an
individual's Outlook® calendar can be updated by the workflow
widget with the date and time of the party, and a task can be
created in an Outlook® task list for reminding the individual to
bring the soda pop. [0105]. The Examiner has not shown that the
language in Baird and Forstall I, taken in combination, teach
transmitting the mashup page along with such a calendar entry.
Instead, Baird simply teaches that in response to user input that
specifies the mashup to be saved and/or deployed, the mashup
design application may send the mashup definition to the mashup
manager for deployment. Furthermore, Forstall I instead simply
teaches sending an e-mail with a party planning widget attached
to the e-mail. There is no discussion in Forstall I regarding a
mashup page, let alone transmitting a mashup page along with
the calendar entry, which according to the Examiner is taught in
paragraphs [0082 and 0105] of Forstall I.
Neither is there any language in the cited passages of Baird
and F orstall I that teaches transmitting the mashup page along
with the calendar entry to one or more recipients of the calendar
entry. The Examiner had previously cited to paragraph [0082] of
Forstall I as teaching the aspect of the accessed calendar data
used in creating or editing an entry in a calendar. Office Action
4
Appeal2017-001769
Application 13/231,051
(7/17/2015), page 5; Office Action (2/25/2016), page 6. The
Examiner has not shown that Baird and F orstall I, taken in
combination, teach transmitting the mashup along with the
calendar entry, as allegedly discussed in paragraph [0082] of
Forstall I, to one or more recipients of the calendar entry, as
allegedly discussed in paragraph [0082] of Forstall I. The
Examiner has failed to provide such a finding.
App. Br. 24--25; see also App. Br. 25-26 and Reply Br. 2--4.
Our Review
We agree with Appellants that the Examiner erred in finding the cited
prior art teaches "transmitting, by a processor of a mashup server, said
mashup page along with said calendar entry to one or more recipients of said
calendar entry," as recited in claim 1.
Baird discloses widgets and mashup pages integrating widgets. See
Baird Abstract. Baird's only disclosure of a calendar is Baird's disclosure of
a calendar widget. See Baird ,r 112 ("calendar widget").
Thus, at best, Baird teaches a mashup page including a calendar
widget but fails to teach or suggest transmitting the "mashup page along
with said calendar entry to one or more recipients of said calendar entry,"
as recited in claim 1, because in Baird there is no separate calendar entry
transmitted along with the mashup page. In short, transmitting a mashup
with a calendar widget does not transmit a "mashup page along with said
calendar entry," as recited in claim 1. The Examiner appears to be aware of
the problem with Baird because in quoting claim 1 on page 5 of the Non-
Final Action, the Examiner omits the word "along" from the quoted claim
language. See Non-Final Act. 5.
5
Appeal2017-001769
Application 13/231,051
Turning to Forstall '093, Forstall '093 discloses "compos[ing] an
email to [a recipient] on [a sender's] desktop computer, attach[ing] a party
planning widget 508 using attachment mechanisms included with known
email applications." Forstall '093 ,r 77. Thus, at best, Forstall '093 teaches a
calendar entry (the party planning widget) but then fails to teach or suggest
transmitting the "mashup page along with said calendar entry to one or
more recipients of said calendar entry," as recited in claim 1, because in
Forstall '093 there is no mashup page-there is only the party planning
widget. We do not agree with the Examiner (see Non-Final Act. 6, Ans. 20-
21) that Forstall '093 's sending an email with a party planning widget is the
same as Appellants' claim limitations because there is no mashup page.
In Baird there is no calendar entry. In Forstall '093, there is no
mashup page. It is not clear how this "transmitting" limitation is met by the
combined prior art because the Examiner's proffered evidence does not
show a sufficient linkage between a mashup page and calendar data, as
required by the claims.
We acknowledge the Examiner's reasoning that "[a] motivation would
have been to reduce the deficiencies of conventional user interfaces and take
advantage of the simplicity and utility of widgets." Final Act. 7 (citing
Forstall '093 ,r,r 19--20); see also Final Act. 8 ("combining these two
systems would be simple and routine for one of ordinary skill in the art since
the references are directly related and in the exact same field of
technology."). That said, such generalized reasoning is insufficient to
provide a rational underpinning for a conclusion of obviousness because the
Examiner is still missing a linkage between a mashup page and calendar
data. On this record, the Examiner has not sufficiently articulated why one
6
Appeal2017-001769
Application 13/231,051
of ordinary skill in the art would have arrived at the claimed invention. For
example, we agree with the following argument presented by Appellants:
Why would the reason to modify Baird ( whose purpose is to not
require sophisticated users to design and develop mashups that
include widgets conforming to different standards and/ or
specifications) to: (1) access calendar data used in creating or
editing an entry in a calendar; (2) provide a plurality of different
widgets on the mashup page, where each of the plurality of
widgets use the accessed calendar entry; and (3) transmit the
mashup page along with the calendar entry to one or more
recipients of the calendar entry ( missing claim limitations) be to
take advantage of the simplicity and utility of widgets? Baird
already teaches the aspect of utilizing widgets.
App. Br. 7.
We, therefore, do not sustain the Examiner's rejection of claim 1. We
also do not sustain the Examiner's rejection of claims 2, 3, 5, and 7, which
depend from claim 1.
We also do not sustain the Examiner's rejection of claim 9 because
claim 9 recites "transmitting said mashup page along with said calendar
entry to one or more recipients of said calendar entry." We also do not
sustain the Examiner's rejection of claims 10, 11, 13, and 15, which depend
from claim 9.
We also do not sustain the Examiner's rejection of claim 16 because
claim 16 recites "circuitry for transmitting said mashup page along with said
calendar entry to one or more recipients of said calendar entry." We also do
not sustain the Examiner's rejection of claims 17, 18, 20, and 22, which
depend from claim 16.
7
Appeal2017-001769
Application 13/231,051
THE OBVIOUSNESS REJECTION OF CLAIMS 1-3, 5, 7, 9-11, 13, 15-18, 20, AND
22 OVER BAIRD, FORSTALL '093, FORSTALL '291, AND ASHTON
Because the Examiner has not shown that Aston cures at least the
deficiencies noted above regarding Baird and Forstall '093, we also do not
sustain the Examiner's rejection of claims 1-3, 5, 7, 9-11, 13, 15-18, 20,
and 22 under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as obvious over Baird, Forstall
'093, Forstall '291, and Ashton.
THE OBVIOUSNESS REJECTION OF CLAIMS 4, 12, AND 19 OVER BAIRD,
FORSTALL '093, FORSTALL '291, BODART OR ASHTON, AND XIAO
The Examiner has not shown that Xiao cures the deficiency of Baird,
Forstall '093, Forstall '291, Bodart and Ashton. See Non-Final Act. 17-18.
We, therefore, do not sustain the Examiner's rejection of claims 4, 12,
and 19.
THE OBVIOUSNESS REJECTION OF CLAIMS 6, 14, AND 21 OVER BAIRD,
FORSTALL '093, FORST ALL '291, BODART OR ASHTON, AND MICHEL
The Examiner has not shown that Michel cures the deficiency of
Baird, Forstall '093, Forstall '291, Bodart and Ashton. See Non-Final Act.
18-20.
We, therefore, do not sustain the Examiner's rejection of claims 6, 14,
and 21.
8
Appeal2017-001769
Application 13/231,051
THE OBVIOUSNESS REJECTION OF CLAIM 8 OVER BAIRD, FORST ALL '093,
FORSTALL '291, BODART OR ASHTON, AND ]EIDE
The Examiner has not shown that Jeide cures the deficiency of Baird,
Forstall '093, Forstall '291, Bodart and Ashton. See Non-Final Act. 20-22.
We, therefore, do not sustain the Examiner's rejection of claim 8.
ORDER
The Examiner's decision rejecting claims 1-22 is reversed.
REVERSED
9