Ex Parte Muller et al

Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences

Jan 5, 2012

11040068 (B.P.A.I. Jan. 5, 2012)

UNITED STA 1ES p A 1ENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
111040,068 0112112005 Michael Muller
46321 7590 01/06/2012
CAREY, RODRIGUEZ, GREENBERG & O"KEEFE, LLP
SIBVEN M. GREENBERG
950 PENINSULA CORPORATE CIRCLE
SUIIB 2022
BOCA RATON, FL 33487
UNITED STA TES 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
MAILDATE DELIVERY MODE
01106/2012 PAPER
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.
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE BOARD OF PATENT APPEALS
AND INTERFERENCES
Ex parte MICHAEL MULLER,
DANIEL M. GRUEN,
THOMAS P. MORAN,
and JOHN C. TANG
Appeal2010-007428
Application 11/040,068
Technology Center 3600
20 Before ANTON W. PETTING, JOSEPH A. FISCHETTI, and
21 BIBHU R. MOHANTY, Administrative Patent Judges.
22 PETTING, Administrative Patent Judge.
23 DECISION ON APPEAL
Appeal2010-007428
Application 11/040,068
STATEMENT OF THE CASE1
2 Michael Muller, Daniel M. Gruen, Thomas P. Moran, and John C. Tang
3 (Appellants) seek review under 35 U.S.C. § 134 (2002) of a final rejection
4 of claims 1-23, the only claims pending in the application on appeal. We
5 have jurisdiction over the appeal pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 6(b) (2002).
6 The Appellants invented a way for the creation and management
7 of resources in an activity in a collaborative computing environment
8 (Specification i-f 0001 ).
9 An understanding of the invention can be derived from a reading of
10 exemplary claim 1, which is reproduced below [bracketed matter and some
11 paragraphing added].
12 1. A unified activity manager for use in a collaborative
13 environment comprising:
14 [1] at least one computer system in which the unified activity
15 manager executes;
16 [2] an activity list view provided by the unified activity
1 7 manager,
18 the activity list view comprising
19 a hierarchical listing of activities;
20 [3] an activity view provided by the unified activity manager,
21 the activity view comprising
22 a rendering of properties associated with a selected
23 activity in said activity list view;
1 Our decision will make reference to the Appellants' Appeal Brief ("App.
Br.," filed December 4, 2009) and Reply Brief ("Reply Br.," filed April 26,
2010), and the Examiner's Answer ("Ans.," mailed February 25, 2010).
2
Appeal2010-007428
Application 11/040,068
[ 4] a persons and roles view provided by the unified activity
2 manager,
3 the persons and roles view comprising
4 at least a listing of collaborators available for
5 association with said selected activity in said
6 activity list view;
7 and,
8 [5] a placeholder management module
9 coupled to the unified activity manager.
10 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
11 Claims 1-5 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 112, second paragraph,
12 as failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the invention.
13 Claims 1-14 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable
14 over Hartenstein and Dick.
15 Claims 15-23 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable
16 over Hartenstein, Dick, and Danneels.
17 ISSUES
18 The issues of obviousness tum primarily on whether Hartenstein
19 describes an activity view including a rendering of properties associated
20 with a selected activity in the activity list view and a the persons and
21 roles view listing collaborators available for association. The issue of
3
Appeal2010-007428
Application 11/040,068
indefiniteness turns primarily on whether the claims are directed to a device
2 or to software per se.
3 FACTS PERTINENT TO THE ISSUES
4 The following enumerated Findings of Fact (FF) are believed to be
5 supported by a preponderance of the evidence.
6 Facts Related to the Prior Art
7 Hartenstein
8 01. Hartenstein is directed to managing many aspects of a person's
9
10
11
or an organization's affiliations for improving collaboration
among persons and organizations having similar affiliations.
Hartenstein i-f 0002.
12 02. In Hartenstein's Fig. 4, Region 405 includes a group of buttons
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
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 activating Contracts 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
4
2
Appeal2010-007428
Application 11/040,068
controls for requesting other pages of the site. Hartenenstein ii
0060.
3 03. In one presentation format, a user receives a presentation of all
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
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 if 0119.
20 04. Icons for time and expense posting include an expense icon
21
22
23
24
25
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 qualified) as each icon of a similar set of icons in a
5
Appeal2010-007428
Application 11/040,068
row of a subsequently presented list is activated. Hartenstein ii
2 0128.
3 Dick
4 05. Dick is directed to manipulating a sequence of a work item in a
5
6
7
8
9
10
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 0007.
11 06. Participants in a B2B collaboration conduct an activity, such
12 as sourcing production, to perform an economic exchange. An
13 activity is isomorphic to the traditional workflow concept of a
14 process, consisting of many steps. A participant in a B2B
15 collaboration utilizes a service, such as Respond to RFQ, to create
16 a business document within the context of an activity. A service
17 is a specialized sub-process within an activity. Services typically
18 occur sequentially within an activity, with some services being
19 optional. Dick i-f' s 0460-0461.
20 ANALYSIS
21 Claims 1-5 rejected under 35 U.S. C. § 112, second paragraph, as failing to
22 particularly point out and distinctly claim the invention.
23 We are persuaded by the Appellants' argument that these claims are
24 definite at least insofar as they are apparatus claims. Appeal Br. 5. The
6
Appeal2010-007428
Application 11/040,068
Examiner found the claims indefinite because the Examiner considered
2 an activity manager to be software. Ans. 4. Generally, a noun such as
3 "manager" used in a data processing context refers to an instantiated
4 process, which is software executing within hardware. The Appellants'
5 arguments as to the elements listed in the body of the claim support this.
6 Claims 1-14 rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over
7 Hartenstein and Dick.
8 We are unpersuaded by the Appellants' argument that the activity view
9 must include a rendering of properties associated with a selected activity
10 in the activity list view and that the persons and roles view must include a
11 rendering of properties associated with a selected activity in the activity list
12 view. Appeal Br. 8.
13 As to the "persons and roles view comprising at least a listing of
14 collaborators available for association with said selected activity in said
15 activity list view" (claim 1 limitation [ 4 ]), the phrase "in said activity list
16 view" appears to modify the phrase "with said selected activity" at least
17 due to that latter phrase being in closest proximity to the former phrase.
18 Thus, limitation [ 4] of a persons and role view does not require a
19 rendering of properties associated with a selected activity in the activity
20 list view, but only a listing of certain collaborators. Those collaborators
21 must in some sense be available for association with a selected activity
22 in the activity list view. There is no requirement that the activity list view
23 be displayed coincident with the persons and roles view.
24 As the Examiner found at Answer 6, Hartenstein's contact button
25 displays such a view. FF 02.
7
Appeal2010-007428
Application 11/040,068
As to the activity view comprising a rendering of properties associated
2 with a selected activity in said activity list view" (claim 1 limitation [3]),
3 the claim does not specify or narrow which properties appear, so long as
4 whichever properties appear are in some manner associated with a selected
5 activity. Similarly, the claim does not specify or narrow the manner of such
6 association or even of selection. Thus, a combination calendar and task list
7 presentation of Items and related information, and larger and more detailed
8 task list presentation, each exhibit properties that are at least associated by
9 time, date, and level of detail to a mentally selected activity. Although
10 Hartenstein's views may also include detail for tasks beyond the selected
11 task, the use of the comprising transition phrase admits such an
12 implementation within the scope of claim 1. More to the point, as the
13 Examiner found at Answer 16, a text box for reviewing all task notes of the
14 respective task may be included in the description of each task. FF 03. Such
15 task notes are clearly properties associated with each task.
16 Further, Hartenstein at least suggests that views generated from selected
17 items provide greater levels of detail, i.e. properties, by its purposeful
18 employment of drill down analysis to uncover such details. FF 04.
19 As to separately argued claims 6-14, inserting a placeholder in an
20 activity in lieu of a specified collaborator, resource, or event, we are
21 unpersuaded by the Appellants' argument that the Examiner misconstrued
22 the term "placeholder." Appeal Br. 12. The Appellants' phrase the
23 argument as though the Examiner failed to show a collaborator, but the
24 claim allows any one of a collaborator, resource, or event. The Examiner
25 found an event placeholder. As the Examiner found at Answer 1 7-19, Dick
8
Appeal2010-007428
Application 11/040,068
provides this as a service isomorphic placeholder for an activity or process
2 step. FF 06.
3 Claims 15-23 rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over
4 Hartenstein, Dick, and Danneels.
5 These claims stand or fall with claim 6. Appeal Br. 12.
6 CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
7 The rejection of claims 1-5 under 35 U.S.C. § 112, second paragraph,
8 as failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the invention is
9 improper.
10 The rejection of claims 1-14 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable
11 over Hartenstein and Dick is proper.
12 The rejection of claims 15-23 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable
13 over Hartenstein, Dick, and Danneels is proper.
14 DECISION
15 The rejection of claims 1-23 is affirmed.
16 No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with this
17 appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a). See 37 C.F.R.
18 § 1.13 6( a )(1 )(iv) (2007).
19
20 AFFIRMED
21
22 JRG
9