Ex Parte Mori et al

Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences

Jun 26, 2009

09487265 (B.P.A.I. Jun. 26, 2009)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
________________

BEFORE THE BOARD OF PATENT APPEALS
AND INTERFERENCES
________________

Ex parte TOSHIKI MORI, MINORU KURIKI,
YASUYUKI JINBO, KIYOTO NAGANUMA,
and
MASAO AIHARA
______________

Appeal 2009-001394
Application 09/487,265
Technology Center 3600
________________

Decided:1 June 29, 2009
________________

Before MURRIEL E. CRAWFORD, JOSEPH A. FISCHETTI, and BIBHU
R. MOHANTY, Administrative Patent Judges.

JOSEPH A. FISCHETTI, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL

1The two-month time period for filing an appeal or commencing a civil
action, as recited in 37 C.F.R. § 1.304, begins to run from the decided date
shown on this page of the decision. The time period does not run from the
Mail Date (paper delivery) or Notification Date (electronic delivery).

Appeal 2009-001394
Application 09/487,265
2

STATEMENT OF THE CASE
This is an appeal under 35 U.S.C. §§ 6(b) and 134(a) (2002) from the
final rejection of claims 1-4, 6-8, 15-18, 21-23, and 29. Claims 5, 9-14, 19,
20 and 24-28 have been cancelled. An Oral Hearing was held on May 21,
2009.
We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We REVERSE.
Representative claim 1 reads as follows:
1. A message processing apparatus,
comprising:
a message generation unit generating a job
completion date message to which attached is an
entry space for entering a completion date offer
indicating a completion date a receiver of a group
who has been assigned to the job desires to agree
to place in the completion date offer entry space in
the message;
an acquisition unit transmitting the job
completion date messages to a plurality of
receivers of the group and receiving each
completion date offer that is entered by the
receivers; and
a control unit causing a terminal device of
the transmitter apparatus at the transmitter of the
message to display the completion date offers of
the receivers together with a decision result with
respect to the completion date offers of the
receivers.
The references set forth below are relied upon as evidence of
obviousness.
Oliver US. 5,907,490 May 25 , 1999
Nakaoka US 6,092,048 Jul. 18, 2000

Appeal 2009-001394
Application 09/487,265

3
The Examiner rejected claims 1-4, 6-8, 15-18, 21, 22-23, and 29 under
35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Oliver in further view of
Nakaoka.
Each of independent claims 1, 15, 17, 21, and 22 requires:
1. an entry space for entering a completion date offer;
2. a terminal device/control unit/program part (for) displaying the
completion date offers of the receivers together with a decision result with
respect to the completion date offers of the receivers.
The Examiner found that
the transmission of a job completion message is
represented by presentation of initial EV
information, which includes percent complete
information as shown in Col. 8, lines 21-29, also
Col. 8, line 67-Col. 9, line 4, where the job
completing message transmitted is represented by
the user clicking on the number on the screen in
order to receive percent of project complete
information, in addition, Col. 9, lines 4-9 shows
the job completion reply since a response
about the percent of a project completed is
disclosed); . . . .
(Answer 4.)
A review of Oliver however reveals a software system in which input
by a user occurs when task data is initially entered thereby resulting in
monitoring and assessing the performance of a
project by entering task data for each task of the
project in a project management software,
obtaining the task data from the project
management software, calculating a current earned
value position, obtaining historical earned value
positions if any exists, and displaying the current
earned value position and any historical earned
value positions.
Appeal 2009-001394
Application 09/487,265

4
(Oliver, col. 2, ll. 45-52.)
Other interactions by the user in Oliver only involve a series of set up
responses requiring either a negative or positive answer at process stages,
and do not require entry of data against which a decision result is applied.
(See, Oliver, col. 7, ll. 11-50.)
The response in Oliver referenced by the Examiner’s finding above is
generated by the system in response to an operator desiring additional
information. That is, in Oliver
[i]f an operator desires additional
information explaining the EV information or EV-
related information, an operator may click on a
button associated with different display fields.
When this is done, the information is evaluated to
provide conditional narrative information based on
the current EV information or EV-related
information as calculated.
(Oliver, col. 8, ll. 55-60.)
Thus, at best, Oliver discloses system-generated data presentation
based on calculated data, and not a response generated from data inputted
into a space as required by each of the independent claims. Furthermore,
nowhere in either Oliver or Nakaoka is it disclosed or made obvious to
display the response data, e.g., the completion date offers of the receivers,
together with a decision result. This is because in Oliver there is no decision
involved, just the unilateral presentation of data off a data point selected
from a graph. Also, with respect to some other independent claims, the
display in Oliver does not function to tabulate the replies from data taken
from the space entry because it does not function in that manner. Rather,
results are based on schedule performance driven by a baseline planning
formulae (Oliver, col. 2, ll. 8-17).
Appeal 2009-001394
Application 09/487,265

5
Accordingly, we cannot sustain the rejection of independent claims 1,
15, 17, 21, and 22 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over
Oliver in further view of Nakaoka.
With regard to the remaining rejected dependent claims, because these
claim rejections rely upon the underlying rejection of independent claims,
we also reverse the Examiner’s rejection of these claims. See In re Fine,
837 F.2d 1071, 1073 (Fed. Cir. 1988).

REVERSED

hh

STAAS & HALSEY LLP
SUITE 700
1201 NEW YORK AVENUE, N.W.
WASHINGTON, DC 20005