Ex Parte Groves

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Jun 18, 2018

13621006 (P.T.A.B. Jun. 18, 2018)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
13/621,006 09/15/2012 Blake Groves
107193 7590 06/20/2018
Keller Jolley Preece/Facebook
1010 North 500 East
Suite 210
North Salt Lake, UT 84054
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.
19487 .302.1.1 4061
EXAMINER
ANDERSON,FOLASHADE
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
3623
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
06/20/2018 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):
docketing@kjpip.com
gjolley@kjpip.com
tmeid@kjpip.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte BLAKE GROVES
Appeal2017-001832
Application 13/621,006
Technology Center 3600
Before HUBERT C. LORIN, KENNETH G. SCHOPPER, and
AMEE A. SHAH, Administrative Patent Judges.
SHAH, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL 1
The Appellant2 appeals under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Examiner's
decision rejecting claims 1 and 69-88. We have jurisdiction under
35 U.S.C. § 6(b ).
We AFFIRM.
1 Throughout this Decision, we refer to the Appellant's Appeal Brief
("Appeal Br.," filed June 2, 2016), Reply Brief ("Reply Br.," filed Nov. 15,
2016), and Specification ("Spec.," filed Sept. 15, 2012, amended May 31,
2013), and to the Examiner's Answer ("Ans.," mailed Sept. 15, 2016), and
Non-Final Office Action ("Office Act.," mailed Oct. 2, 2015).
2 According to the Appellant, the real party in interest is Facebook, Inc.
Appeal Br. 2.
Appeal2017-001832
Application 13/621,006
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
The Appellant's invention "relates generally to electronic calendar
events and certain implementations relate more particularly to inviting an
entity to a calendar event using electronic messages." Spec. 1, 11. 7-9.
Claims 1 and 82 are the independent claims on appeal. Claim 1
(Appeal Br. 22 (Claims App.)) is exemplary of the subject matter on appeal
and is reproduced below (lettered bracketing added for reference).
1. A method comprising:
[(a)] providing, for display on a client device associated
with a user, an electronic calendar interface that comprises one
or more user-generated calendar events and a plurality of areas
that each correspond to a time parameter defining a date and a
time;
[ (b)] providing, for display on the client device, an
electronic contact list interface that comprises one or more user-
identified contacts;
[ ( c)] determining, using at least one processor, that an
identifier associated with a contact displayed in the electronic
contact list interface has been dragged and dropped onto an area
from the plurality of areas of the electronic calendar interface;
[ ( d)] identifying a time parameter that corresponds to the
area from the plurality of areas of the electronic calendar
interface; and
[ ( e)] in response to determining that the identifier has been
dragged and dropped onto the area from the plurality of areas of
the electronic calendar interface, and based on the identified time
parameter, creating, using the at least one processor, a new
calendar event associated with the contact and the identified time
parameter.
2
Appeal2017-001832
Application 13/621,006
REJECTIONS
Claims 1 and 69-88 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 101 as being a
judicial exception.
Claims 1, 69-73, 78-84, 87, and 88 stand rejected under pre-AIA
35 U.S.C. § I03(a) as being unpatentable over Haims et al
(US 2003/0105820 Al, pub. June 5, 2003) (hereinafter "Haims"), Rohall
et al. (US 2003/0163537 Al, pub. Aug. 28, 2003) (hereinafter "Rohall"), and
Gunasekar et al. (US 2005/0034079 Al, pub. Feb. 10, 2005) (hereinafter
"Gunasekar").
Claims 74--77, 85, and 86 stand rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C.
§ I03(a) as being unpatentable over Haims, Rohall, Gunasekar, and Li et al.
(US 5,515,492, iss. May 7, 1996) (hereinafter "Li").
ANALYSIS
Patent-Ineligible Subject Matter-§ 101 3
The Appellant argues claims 1 and 69-88 as a group. See Appeal
Br. 14, 17, 20. We select claim 1 as representative of the group with claims
69-88 standing or falling therewith. See 37 C.F.R. § 4I.37(c)(l)(iv).
Under 35 U.S.C. § 101, a patent may be obtained for "any new and
useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new
and useful improvement thereof." The Supreme Court has "long held that
this provision contains an important implicit exception: Laws of nature,
natural phenomena, and abstract ideas are not patentable." Alice Corp. Pty.
Ltd. v. CLS Banklnt'l, 134 S. Ct. 2347, 2354 (2014) (quotingAss'nfor
3 The rejections are addressed in the order presented in the Office Action.
3
Appeal2017-001832
Application 13/621,006
Molecular Pathology v. Myriad Genetics, Inc., 569 U.S. 576, 588-89
(2013)).
The Supreme Court in Alice reiterated the two-step framework, set
forth previously in Mayo Collaborative Services v. Prometheus
Laboratories, Inc., 566 U.S. 66, 78-79 (2012), "for distinguishing patents
that claim laws of nature, natural phenomena, and abstract ideas from those
that claim patent-eligible applications of those concepts." Alice, 134 S. Ct.
at 2355. The first step in that analysis is to "determine whether the claims at
issue are directed to one of those patent-ineligible concepts." Id. (emphasis
added) ( citing Mayo, 566 U.S. at 79). If so, the second step is to consider
the elements of the claims "individually and 'as an ordered combination'" to
determine whether the additional elements "'transform the nature of the
claim' into a patent-eligible application." Id. ( quoting Mayo, 566 U.S.
at 78-79).
Alice/Mayo Step One
Under the first step of the Alice/Mayo framework, the Examiner
determines that claim 1 is directed to "the abstract idea of organizing future
human activities, i.e. scheduling events associated with time parameters."
Office Act. 10; see also id. at 5; Ans. 18. Conversely, the Appellant
contends that claim 1 is directed to "a method of creating a new calendar
event within an electronic calendar in response to a single user interaction-
dragging and dropping a contact identifier into an electronic calendar
interface." Appeal Br. 17.
The step-one analysis requires us to consider the claims "in their
entirety to ascertain whether their character as a whole is directed to
excluded subject matter." Internet Patents Corp. v. Active Network, Inc.,
4
Appeal2017-001832
Application 13/621,006
790 F.3d 1343, 1346 (Fed. Cir. 2015). The question is whether the claim as
a whole "focus[ es] on a specific means or method that improves the relevant
technology" or is "directed to a result or effect that itself is the abstract idea
and merely invoke generic processes and machinery." McRO, Inc. v. Bandai
Namco Games Am. Inc., 837 F.3d 1299, 1314 (Fed. Cir. 2016).
Here, the Specification discusses that "[ s ]cheduling an event may
demand the attention of all the people that are to attend the event." Spec. 9,
11. 8-9. Such scheduling may require each person to "determine his or her
availability to attend the event and, if necessary, determine and
communicate changes that need to be made to the event such that attendance
is possible." Id. at 9, 11. 9-11. The Specification provides that "[u]se of an
IM system may allow an invitor to receive prompt responses to their
invitation, while providing some level of assurance to the inviter that the
invitee perceives their invitation without undue delay" (id. at 9, 11. 15-17),
that "[b ]y receiving invitations over the IM system, the invitees may be
notified without delay of invitations, enabling them to respond immediately.
Moreover, invitees may promptly communicate and resolve conflicts" (id.
at 10, 11. 27-29), that "by sending invitations over the IM system, the invitor
may provide notification of an event without delay" (id. at 10, 11. 30-31 ),
and that "[ d]ragging and dropping may automatically specify certain details
of the event, eliminating the need to enter those details, and thereby saving
time" (id. at 11, 11. 15-16).
Claim 1 provides for a method comprising (a) providing an electronic
calendar interface with event data and areas corresponding to a time
parameter/ data, (b) providing a contact list interface with contact data, ( c)
determining an identifier has been dragged and dropped from the contact list
5
Appeal2017-001832
Application 13/621,006
interface onto an area in the calendar interface, ( d) identifying a time
parameter corresponding to that area, and ( e) in response to the determining
and identifying, creating a new calendar event data. See Appeal Br. 22
( Claims App.).
The Specification does not provide details for steps ( c ), ( d), and ( e) of
determining, identifying, and creating. Based on the portions of the
Specification relied on by the Appellant for step ( c) of determining a contact
has been dropped and dragged (Appeal Br. 3 (citing Spec. 4, 11. 3-5;
10, 11. 2--4, 7-9; 11, 11. 15-16, Figs. 12A-12M)), the determining is the act of
dragging and dropping. These relied-upon portions discuss that a participant
selection may be received in response to a user dragging and dropping a
representation into the calendar interface (Spec. 4, 11. 3-5), that one or more
names may be dragged and dropped from a buddy list over a representation
of a calendar event or over a blank period of time (id. at 10, lines 2--4, 7-9),
and that "[ d]ragging and dropping may automatically specify certain details
of the event, eliminating the need to enter those details, and thereby saving
time" (id. at 11, 11. 15-16). Figures 12A through 12M depict "exemplary
interfaces displayed during collaborative scheduling of calendar events." Id.
at 9, 11. 5-6. But, none of these cited portions discusses or provides details
on how, i.e. by what algorithm or technically, the determination is made that
a contact has been dragged and dropped.
Similarly, based on the portions of the Specification relied on by the
Appellant for step ( d) of identifying a time parameter ( Appeal Br. 3 ( citing
Spec. 3, 11. 24--30, Fig. 12A-12M), the identifying comprises the user
selecting a time parameter by dragging and dropping the participant into the
calendar. The claim does not recite who or what performs the step of
6
Appeal2017-001832
Application 13/621,006
identifying a time parameter. The Specification, at page 3, lines 24--30,
provides that a participant selection is received in response to a user
dragging a calendar event from the calendar interface to a position on a
buddy list interface corresponding to a participant, and that "at least one time
parameter for the event may be recognized by providing a calendar event
input interface listing the participant as an invitee in response to the
dragging of the time block." Spec. 3, 11. 24--30. As discussed above,
Figures 12A through 12M depict "exemplary interfaces displayed during
collaborative scheduling of calendar events." Id. at 9, 11. 5---6. But, these
portions provide no further discussion or details on how, i.e. by what
algorithm or technically, the identification of a time parameter is made.
Based on the portions of the Specification relied on by the Appellant
for step ( e) of creating a new calendar event ( Appeal Br. 3 ( citing Spec. 10,
11. 2--4, 7-9; 11, 11. 10-12, 15-18, Figs. 12A-12M)), the creating comprises
entering data of at least one participant and a time. The Specification, at
page 10, discusses that one or more names may be dragged and dropped
from a buddy list over a representation of a calendar event or over a blank
period of time. Spec. 10, 11. 2--4, 7-9. At page 11, the Specification
provides that "[i]nvitees may be selected for an existing calendar event in an
analogous manner to selecting invitees to a newly inspired event, for
example, by copying/pasting or dragging/dropping the existing event" (id. at
11, 11. 10-12), and that "[d]ragging and dropping may automatically specify
certain details of the event, eliminating the need to enter those details, and
thereby saving time" (id. at 11, 11. 15-16). Figures 12A through 12M depict
"exemplary interfaces displayed during collaborative scheduling of calendar
events." Id. at 9, 11. 5---6. But, none of these cited portions discusses or
7
Appeal2017-001832
Application 13/621,006
provides details on how, i.e. by what algorithm or technically, the calendar
event is created.
The Specification further provides that the client device used in the
method, i.e., client system 110, is "a general-purpose computer capable of
responding to and executing instructions in a defined manner, a personal
computer, a special-purpose computer, a workstation, a server, a device, a
component, or other equipment or some combination thereof capable of
responding to and executing instructions." Spec. 27, 11. 23-27, Fig. 1. The
network used is a "series of portals interconnected through a coherent
system," i.e., a generic network such as a WAN, LAN, PSTN, ISDN, xDSL,
"or any other wired and wireless network." Id. at 28, 11. 13-19. The
processor used, i.e., host server 130, is "a general-purpose computer capable
of responding to and executing instructions in a defined manner, a personal
computer, a special-purpose computer, a workstation, a server, a device, a
component, or other equipment or some combination thereof capable of
responding to and executing instructions." Id. at 28, 11. 20-24.
In light of Specification's description of the problem and solution, the
purported advance over the prior art by the claimed invention is a way to
schedule an event in a more timely manner with fewer conflicts. In that
context, considering the claim in light of the Specification and on its
"character as a whole" (Enfzsh, LLC v. Microsoft Corp., 822 F.3d 1327,
1335 (Fed. Cir. 2016)), we agree with the Examiner that claim 1 is directed
to scheduling calendar events associated with time parameters, a method of
organizing human activity. The claim here is akin to ones our reviewing
court has deemed abstract in Electric Power Grp. LLC v. Alstom S.A., 830
F.3d 1350, 1353-54 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (gathering and analyzing information
8
Appeal2017-001832
Application 13/621,006
by steps people go through in their minds, or by mathematical algorithms, of
a specific content and displaying the results), Mortgage Grader, Inc. v. First
Choice Loan Servs., 811 F.3d 1314, 1324 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (explaining "[t]he
series of steps covered by the asserted claims ... could all be performed by
humans without a computer" in concluding that the claims are directed to an
abstract idea), and Content Extraction and Transmission LLC v. Wells Fargo
Bank, 776 F.3d 1343, 1347 (Fed. Cir. 2014) (collecting, recognizing, and
storing data is an abstract idea). The claim is also akin to claims deemed
abstract in P & RO Sols. Grp., Inc. v. CiM Maint., Inc., 273 F. Supp. 3d 699,
708 (E.D. Tex. 2017) (claims using drag and drop for scheduling are
"directed to the abstract idea of scheduling business activities using a
computer and computer network."). Here, the claim involves nothing more
than providing, determining, and identifying data, and creating data based on
the analysis, without any particular inventive technology or description of
how to achieve the results in a non-abstract way- an abstract idea.
See Elec. Power, 830 F.3d at 1354. As such, we find unpersuasive the
Appellant's arguments that the Examiner oversimplifies the language of the
claim (see Appeal Br. 15; Reply Br. 4--5) and that "[c]reating a new calendar
event in response to a drag and drop event goes well beyond the collection,
analysis, and display of information discussed with reference to Electric
Power Group" (Reply Br. 6).
We also find unpersuasive the Appellant's argument that claim is
patent eligible because it "recite[ s] a concrete solution to electronic
calendaring, not the high level abstract idea articulated by the Examiner."
Appeal Br. 15. That the steps of the claim "can only be performed within
the digital environment of electronic calendaring" (Appeal Br. 16), does not
9
Appeal2017-001832
Application 13/621,006
preclude the claims from being directed to an abstract idea at least because
the Court has instructed that the significance of these elements is determined
in step two of the Mayo/Alice framework. The claims in Alice, for example,
were not devoid of technical elements, but were determined to be directed to
an abstract idea. Cf In re TL! Commc 'ns LLC Patent Litig., 823 F.3d 607,
611 (Fed. Cir. 2016) ("[N]ot every claim that recites concrete, tangible
components escapes the reach of the abstract-idea inquiry").
Alice/Mayo Step Two
The second step of the Mayo/Alice framework is to "search for an
'inventive concept'-i.e., an element or combination of elements that is
'sufficient to ensure that the patent in practice amounts to significantly more
than a patent upon the [ineligible concept] itself."' Alice, 134 S. Ct. at 2355
(alteration in original) (quoting Mayo, 566 U.S. at 72-73).
Under the second step, we agree with and find supported the
Examiner's determination that the elements of claim 1, individually or as an
ordered combination, do not amount to significantly more than the above-
identified abstract idea. See Office Act. 6, 11; Ans. 20-21. We are not
persuaded of Examiner error by the Appellant's arguments that assert the
opposite. See Appeal Br. 18-20. We note, as discussed above, that the
Specification conveys that the computer-related components recited in the
claims (e.g., the client device and processor) are routine and conventional
computer components such as general-purpose computers. See Spec. 27,
11. 23-27; 28, 11. 13-24; Fig. 1.
We find unpersuasive the Appellant's argument that the claim is
analogous to those of DDR Holdings, LLC v. Hotels.com, L.P., 773
F.3d 1245 (Fed. Cir. 2014), because the claim "recite[s] an ordered
10
Appeal2017-001832
Application 13/621,006
combination that is 'necessarily rooted in computer technology' by quickly
creating new events within an electronic calendar in response to a single user
interaction." Appeal Br. 18-19; Reply Br. 6-7. In DDR Holdings, the
Federal Circuit determined that the claims addressed the problem of
retaining website visitors who, if adhering to the routine, conventional
functioning of Internet hyperlink protocol, would be transported instantly
away from a host's website after clicking on an advertisement and activating
a hyperlink. DDR Holdings, 773 F.3d at 1257. The Federal Circuit, thus,
held that the claims were directed to statutory subject matter because they
claim a solution "necessarily rooted in computer technology in order to
overcome a problem specifically arising in the realm of computer networks."
Id. The court cautioned that "not all claims purporting to address Internet-
centric challenges are eligible for patent." Id. at 1258. And the court
contrasted the claims to those at issue in Ultramercial, in that, in DDR
Holdings, the computer network was not operating in its "normal[] expected
manner" and the claims did not "recite an invention that is ... merely the
routine or conventional use of the Internet." Id. at 1258-59.
In contrast, there is no indication here that the claimed invention
claims a solution "necessarily rooted in computer technology in order to
overcome a problem specifically arising in the realm of computer networks."
Id. at 1257. The Appellant does not identify the specific problem the
invention is overcoming. However, as discussed above, the Specification
provides that the claim addresses the problem of delayed invitations and
time spent to resolve conflicts. See Spec. 9, 11. 15-17; 10, 11. 27-31; 11,
11. 15-16. Although the content is computer-centric and the field of the
invention is the Internet, i.e., an electronic calendar (see Appeal Br. 17, 19;
11
Appeal2017-001832
Application 13/621,006
Reply Br. 7), and thus, the claim is tied to a computer and the Internet, the
problems of prompt invitations and the time-consuming nature of resolving
scheduling conflicts are ones that existed prior to the Internet. See
Ultramercial, 772 F.3d at 716-17. The purported solution comprises
generic computers operating in their normal, ordinary capacities to provide,
determine, identify, and create data. See Spec. 27, 11. 23-27; 28, 11. 13-24;
see also Office Act. 5. The claim recites an invention that is merely the
routine or conventional use of the Internet and computers to perform an
abstract business practice. DDR Holdings, 773 F.3d at 1258-59.
We find unpersuasive the Appellant's arguments that "the disclosed
invention improves upon existing technology for ' [ s ]cheduling an electronic
calendar event' by proposing an ordered combination leading to the creation
of a new electronic calendar event. (Specification at page 1, line 11.)."
Appeal Br. 19. The steps of providing, determining, identifying, dragging
and dropping, and creating data are well-understood, routine, and
conventional functions of a generic computer. See, e.g., Elec. Power, 830
F.3d at 1354--55 (gathering, sending, monitoring, analyzing, selecting, and
presenting information does not transform the abstract process into a patent-
eligible invention), Content Extraction, 776 F.3d at 1348 (recognizing and
storing information are a well-understood, routine, and conventional
activities of a computer), and P & RO, 273 F. Supp. 3d at 710 (dragging and
dropping is a generic function of a computer).
Further, as noted above, the Specification provides no details on how
the steps of determining an identifier has been dragged and dropped,
identifying a time parameter, and creating an event are performed; rather, the
functions are claimed generically. See Affinity Labs, 838 F.3d at 1271; see
12
Appeal2017-001832
Application 13/621,006
also Affinity Lab of Texas v, DIRECTV, LLC, 838 F.3d 1253, 1262 (Fed.
Cir. 2016) ("More generally, 'simply appending conventional steps specified
at a high level of generality' to an abstract idea does not make the idea
patentable.") (quoting Mayo, 132 S.Ct. at 1300). There is no further
specification of particular technology or algorithms for performing the steps.
See TDE Petroleum Data Sols., Inc., v. AKM Enter., Inc., 657 F. App'x 991,
993 (Fed. Cir. 2016), cert. denied, 137 S. Ct. 1230 (2017) ("As we discussed
at greater length in Electric Power, the claims of the '812 patent recite the
what of the invention, but none of the how that is necessary to tum the
abstract idea into a patent-eligible application.") (citing Elec. Power Grp.,
830 F.3d at 1353); see also Internet Patents Corp. v. Active Network, Inc.,
790 F.3d 1343, 1348 (Fed. Cir. 2015) ("As the district court observed,
claim 1 contains no restriction on how the result is accomplished."). There
is no improvement to the technology of the computers or any indication that
the dragging and dropping is anything other than a well-known, routine, and
conventional function.
Based on the foregoing, we sustain the Examiner's rejection under
35 U.S.C. § 101 of independent claim 1 and of claims 69-88, which fall with
claim 1.
Obviousness - § 103 ( a)
We agree with the Appellant's contention that the Examiner does not
adequately show that the prior art teaches creating a new calendar event in
response to determining a dragged and dropped identifier onto an area of a
calendar interface and an identified time corresponding to that area, as
recited in limitations ( c ), ( d), and ( e) of independent claim 1 and similarly
recited in independent claim 82. See Appeal Br. 11-14; Reply Br. 2--4.
13
Appeal2017-001832
Application 13/621,006
The Examiner appears to rely on the combination of Haims, Rohall,
and Gunaseker for these limitations. See Office Act. 12-16. Specifically,
the Examiner finds that Haims teaches initiating an invitation and creating a
meeting request when a user right-clicks in the contact list area of a user
interface. Id. at 12 (citing Haims ,r,r 94, 110). The Examiner finds that
Rohall teaches determining an identifier has been dragged and dropped onto
an area of the calendar interface (id. at 13 ( citing Rohall ,r,r 110, 131 ),
identifying a time parameter corresponding to that area (id. at 14 ( citing
Rohall ,r,r 112, 114), and creating a calendar event associated with the
dragged and dropped contact and identified time parameter (id. ( citing
Rohall i-f 131)). The Examiner determines that it would have been obvious
to one of ordinary skill in the art to have substituted Rohall's drag and drop
invitation for Haims's right-click. Id. at 15. The Examiner acknowledges
that "Haims and Ro hall are silent on if the calendar events are 'new"' (id.
at 15). The Examiner finds that Gunaseker teaches creating "the claimed
limitation of 'a new calendar event associated with the contact."' Id. at 15-
16 ( citing Gunaseker ,r 110)) and determines that:
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at
the time the invention was made to include the invention of
Haims and Rohall the a new calendar event associated with the
contact as taught by Gunaseker since the claimed invention is
merely a substitution of old and well known elements, and one
of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the results
of the combination were predictable.
Id. at 16.
Haims discloses a method of facilitating online communications
among multiple participants including generating and distributing meeting
requests from submitted information. Haims Abtract, ,r 94. A user can
14
Appeal2017-001832
Application 13/621,006
initiate an invitation by right-clicking in the user's "contact list" section of a
user interface and selecting an "INVITE" function. Id. ,r 110. This triggers
a transmission of a request to create a meeting. Id. The meeting is created
and the user sends the invitation to invited users via messages. Id.
,r,r 110, 112.
Rohall discloses a method of using and manipulating a generated
thread in a meeting invitation. See Rohall ,r 131. A user's selection of a
meeting announcement in an email cause a calendar bar to be displayed. Id.
If a user desires to invite another participant to the meeting, the user can
drag and drop the meeting thread to another participant contact reference,
such as a name in an address book, address in an email, or party in a video
conference or text chat. Id. The data structure representing the entire
meeting thread is then transmitted to the recipient's inbox. Id.
Gunaseker discloses a method for "supporting multi-media
conferencing." Gunaseker, Abstract. A user wishing to set up a new
conference having many of the attributes of an existing or concluded
conference can drag and drop the existing/ concluded conference's data
object into the attendee area of the scheduling interface for the new
conference. Id. ,r 110. The attributes of the data object, including attendees,
time, date, etc., can be edited before submitting the scheduling request to the
scheduling application. Id.
As the Appellant states, Rohall teaches "dragging and dropping a data
structure to transmit an existing meeting thread to an additional participant."
Appeal Br. 11. We agree with the Appellant that the "'meeting thread' for
an email exchange is neither an identifier associated with a contact nor an
identified time parameter within an electronic calendar interface on which
15
Appeal2017-001832
Application 13/621,006
the identifier was dropped." Id. at 11-12. Essentially, Rohall teaches
dragging and dropping a meeting onto a participant. Similarly, Gunaseker
teaches dragging and dropping the conference data onto an attendee.
However, the claims require that an identifier associated with a contact is
dragged and dropped onto a calendar, creating a meeting. The Examiner
does not adequately explain how Rohall and/or Gunaseker teaches that the
participant is dragged and dropped onto the meeting such that a meeting is
created. And, the Examiner has not adequately explained how Haims' s
right-clicking in the contact list to create an invitation is combined with
Rohall's and/or Gunaseker's dragging and dropping of the meeting onto a
participant/attendee to create a meeting meets the claimed limitation of
creating a meeting based on the dragging and dropping of a participant/
attendee onto a time area of a calendar.
Based on the foregoing, we do not sustain the Examiner's rejection
under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) of independent claims 1 and 82. We also do not
sustain the rejections of dependent claims 69-81 and 83-88, which rely on
the same inadequate findings.
DECISION
The Examiner's rejection of claims 1 and 69-88 under 35 U.S.C.
§ 101 is AFFIRMED.
The Examiner's rejections of claims 1 and 69-88 under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a) are REVERSED.
16
Appeal2017-001832
Application 13/621,006
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
17