Ex Parte Muller et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Oct 19, 2016

11040068 (P.T.A.B. Oct. 19, 2016)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE
111040,068 0112112005
46321 7590 10/21/2016
CRGOLAW
STEVEN M. GREENBERG
7900 Glades Road
SUITE 520
BOCA RATON, FL 33434
FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
Michael Muller
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.
LOT20040131US1 (077) 2288
EXAMINER
STERRETT, JONATHAN G
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
3623
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
10/2112016 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@crgolaw.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte MICHAEL MULLER,
DANIEL M. GRUEN,
THOMAS P. MORAN,
and JOHN C. TANG
Appeal2014-002568 1
Application 11/040,068
Technology Center 3600
Before ANTON W. PETTING, JOSEPH A. FISCHETTI, and
BIBHU R. MOHANTY, Administrative Patent Judges.
PETTING, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
1 Our decision will make reference to the Appellants' Appeal Brief ("App.
Br.," filed July 18, 2013) and Reply Brief ("Reply Br.," filed December 11,
2013), and the Examiner's Answer ("Ans.," mailed October 25, 2013).
Appeal2014-002568
Application 11/040,068
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Michael Muller, Daniel M. Gruen, Thomas P. Moran, and John C. Tang
(Appellants) seek review under 35 U.S.C. § 134 (2002) of a final rejection
of claims 1-23, the only claims pending in the application on appeal. We
have jurisdiction over the appeal pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 6(b) (2002).
The Appellants invented a way for the creation and management of
resources in an activity in a collaborative computing environment
(Specification i-f 1 ).
An understanding of the invention can be derived from a reading of
exemplary claim 1, which is reproduced below [bracketed matter and some
paragraphing added]. This is the second time this application has come
before us. Claim 1 has been amended in limitations [4] and [5] to further
recite concurrent views.
1. A unified activity manager for use in a collaborative
environment comprising:
[1] at least one computer system in which the unified activity
manager executes;
[2] an activity list view provided by the unified activity
manager,
the activity list view comprising
a hierarchical listing of activities;
[3] an activity view provided by the unified activity manager,
the activity view comprising
a rendering of properties associated with a selected
activity in said activity list view;
[ 4] a persons and roles view
2
Appeal2014-002568
Application 11/040,068
and,
displayed concurrently in a single screen with the activity
view
and
provided by the unified activity manager,
the persons and roles view comprising
at least a listing of collaborators available
for association with said selected activity in
said activity list view;
[5] a placeholder management module
coupled to the unified activity manager ,
the module comprising program code enabled to display
a placeholder for a collaborator
designated to perform a task in an activity in
the activity view
in lieu of reference to a specific collaborator.
The Examiner relies upon the following prior art:
Danneels
Dick
US 6,272,472 Bl
US 2002/0120459 Al
Hartenstein US 2005/0192822 Al
Aug. 7, 2001
Aug. 29, 2002
Sep. 1,2005
Gimenes, "Enterprise frameworks for workflow management systems,"
Software: Practice and Experience, Wiley Online Library (2002).
Claims 1-14 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable
over Hartenstein, Dick, and Gimenes.
Claims 15-23 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable
over Hartenstein, Dick, Gimenes, and Danneels.
3
Appeal2014-002568
Application 11/040,068
ISSUES
The issues of obviousness tum primarily on whether Gimenes describes
displaying concurrent user, role, and activity list views as to claim 1 and
whether simply presenting data simultaneously is sufficient to overcome the
findings from the prior appeal as to claims 6 and 15.
FACTS PERTINENT TO THE ISSUES
The following enumerated Findings of Fact (FF) are believed to be
supported by a preponderance of the evidence.
Facts Related to the Prior Art
Hartenstein
01. Hartenstein is directed to managing many aspects of a person's or
an organization's affiliations for improving collaboration among
,..J " " 1 " " "1 CC::l" " TT " persons anu orgamzatwns i1avmg similar a11ilrntwns. nartenstem
iT 2.
02.In Hartenstein's Figure 4, Region 405 includes a group of buttons
for selecting alternate presentations for Region 406, a group of
buttons for beginning data entry, and a control for selecting which
aggregation of items will be presented in Region 406. By
activating Calendar button 440, a request is made for a
combination calendar and task list presentation of Items and
related information in Region 406. By activating Tasks button
442, a request is made for a larger and more detailed task list
presentation of Items and related information in Region 406. By
4
Appeal2014-002568
Application 11/040,068
activating Contacts button 444, a request is made for a
presentation of Persons and related information in region 406.
Each alternate presentation includes forms for data entry and
controls for requesting other pages of the site. Hartenstein i-f 60.
03 .In one presentation format, a user receives a presentation of all
tasks (e.g., a task list) on activation of task icon 1341. A text box
(not shown) for reviewing all task notes of the respective task may
be included in the description 1364 of each task. The user
receives a presentation of all appointments in day (D), week (W),
month (M), or date range (R) scope and format (e.g., a calendar
column or grid) on activation of one of the calendar icons 1342.
The date range (R) may be specified by the user in the text-menu
box as shown. The user receives a presentation of all contacts
(Persons) on activation of contact icon 1343. The user receives a
presentation of all projects on activation of project icon 1344. The
user receives a presentation of all folders (and hierarchical
contents) on activation of files icon 1345. The user receives a
presentation of all emails on activation of emails icon 1346.
Finally, the user receives a form for specifying any ad hoc criteria
for a search on activation of search icon (magnifying glass) 1347.
Hartenstein i-f 119.
04.Icons for time and expense posting include an expense icon with a
query for all expenses charged to the appointment of this row, and
timer icon. Queries of icons 1383-1389 provide quick access to
all information related to the appointment of this row and provide
a stepwise drill down for further related information (increasingly
5
Appeal2014-002568
Application 11/040,068
qualified) as each icon of a similar set of icons in a row of a
subsequently presented list is activated. Hartenstein i-f 128.
Dick
05.Dick is directed to manipulating a sequence of a work item in a
supply chain. First, a work item is generated that is representative
of communications between businesses utilizing a network. A
project template is then identified, where the project template
includes a plurality of process templates. The work item is then
processed in accordance with process templates in order to
accomplish goals of the project template. Dick i-f 7.
06.Participants in a B2B collaboration conduct an activity, such as
sourcing production, to perform an economic exchange. An
activity is isomorphic to the traditional workflow concept of a
process, consisting of many steps. A participant in a B2B
collaboration utilizes a service, such as Respond to RFQ, to create
a business document within the context of an activity. A service
is a specialized sub-process within an activity. Services typically
occur sequentially within an activity, with some services being
optional. Dick i-fi-1 460-461.
Gimenes
01. Gimenes is directed to an enterprise framework for workflow
management (WPM) systems based on the W orkflow
Management Coalition generic architecture. Gimenes 1:
Summary.
6
Appeal2014-002568
Application 11/040,068
ANALYSIS
As to claim 1 and its dependent claims, we are persuaded by the
Appellants' argument that "there is nothing in Gimenes to suggest that a
persons and roles view is displayed concurrently in a single screen with an
activity view, as required by Appellants' claim language." Reply Br. 5. As
Appellants contend, Gimenes Fig. 3 is a package diagram that represents the
model framework for task scheduling, not a representation of a computer
display. App. Br. 7. While it might be predictable to put Gimenes's Fig. 3
as such on a display, as Examiner contends (Ans. 6), as the content is only a
model framework, the views would not contain the data recited in the claim,
but only the static generic model representation in that figure.
We do not find the Examiner's reasoning that the claimed combination is
no more than the combination of the prior art elements and their known
functions, and no unexpected results for the combination have been shown
to be persuasive. (Id.) It is for the Examiner to show why it was predictable
to put the views together to make a prima facie case. It is not for Appellants
to show why it was unpredictable, until after the Examiner has made a prima
facie case. Contrary to the Examiner's finding (Ans. 7), the claim recites
functional interrelationships among the views, viz. "listing of collaborators
available for association with said selected activity in said activity list view."
This is not a matter of Appellants' simply adding non-functional limitations
to existing prior art. Absent such a reason to discount patentable weight,
simply combining prior art elements and their known functions with no
articulated reasoning to do so is insufficient to form a prima facie case.
7
Appeal2014-002568
Application 11/040,068
We are also persuaded by the Appellants' argument that Examiner has
chosen to address only part of Appellants' claim language-in this case the
"placeholder"-while ignoring other portions of Appellants' claim language
- in this case 'in lieu of."' App. Br. 3; see also Reply Br. 5. The Examiner
found that a placeholder is a process or equivalently an activity template that
can be dynamically defined by business rules defined in the system. Claim 1
recites that the placeholder enables "display ... for a collaborator designated
to perform a task in an activity in the activity view in lieu of reference to a
specific collaborator." A collaborator is not an event or process.
As to independent claims 6 and 15, however, we are not persuaded by
the Appellants' argument in support of claim 1 because those claims recite
only "plurality of views comprising at least a persons and roles view
displayed concurrently in a single screen with an activity view" (claim 6), "a
persons and roles view displayed concurrently in a single screen with an
activity view" (claim 15), and "a placeholder ... in lieu of a specified
collaborator, resource, or event" (claims 6 and 15). Thus, the claims do not
recite particular data the views displayed simultaneously must present and
the placeholder may be for an event in both claims 6 and 15.
Aside from the issue of simultaneous presentation, these claims are
essentially similar to in scope to claim 1 as of record in the prior appeal.
There we found that Hartenstein provides both a persons and roles view and
an activity view, and that Dick's template provides a service isomorphic
placeholder for an activity or process step, which is within the scope of an
event.
8
Appeal2014-002568
Application 11/040,068
Thus the only new issue is whether it was predictable to show
Hartenstein's persons and roles view and activity view simultaneously in a
single screen. We note that the claim recites a single screen and not a single
window pane, so simultaneity among plural windows in a single screen is
within the scope of these claims.
Hartenstein showed persons and their roles in a listing after pressing a
Contacts button and showed task activities after pressing a Tasks button. FF
02 and 03. Unlike claim 1, no functional interrelationships are recited
among the views. Therefore, the Examiner's finding that it was predictable
to simply aggregate non-functionally related data that was displayed
separately is proper because it is simple human nature to desire viewing as
broad a scope of information as possible at the same time. This would entail
simply retaining the views that pop up from pressing Hartenstein's Contacts
and Tasks buttons.
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
The rejection of claims 1-5 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable
over Hartenstein, Dick, and Gimenes is improper.
The rejection of claims 6-14 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable
over Hartenstein, Dick, and Gimenes is proper.
The rejection of claims 15-23 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable
over Hartenstein, Dick, Gimenes, and Danneels is proper.
9
Appeal2014-002568
Application 11/040,068
uECISION
The rejection of claims 1-5 is reversed.
The rejection of claims 6-23 is affirmed.
No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with this
appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a). See 37 C.F.R.
§ 1.136(a)(l)(iv) (2011).
AFFIRMED IN PART
10