Ex Parte O et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Mar 19, 2014

11428233 (P.T.A.B. Mar. 19, 2014)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
____________________

BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
____________________

Ex parte PATRICK JOSEPH O'SULLIVAN and GARY
DENNER
____________________

Appeal 2011-011020
Application 11/428,233
Technology Center 3600
____________________

Before: JOHN C. KERINS, LYNNE H. BROWNE, and
JILL D. HILL, Administrative Patent Judges.

BROWNE, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL

Appeal 2011-011020
Application 11/428,233
2
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Patrick Joseph O’Sullivan and Gary Denner (Appellants) appeal under
35 U.S.C. § 134 from the rejection of claims 1-22. We have jurisdiction
under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We REVERSE.

CLAIMED SUBJECT MATTER
The claims are directed to a method, system, and product for rotating
roles in calendar events. Claims 1, 11, and 22 are independent. Claim 1 is
reproduced below with emphasis added:
1. A method, embodied in at least one computer system, for
rotating roles in calendar events, comprising:
generating a user interface for creating a repeating
calendar event, wherein the user interface for creating the
repeating calendar event includes a plurality of user selectable
rotation types;
inputting candidates for a rotating role relating to the
repeating calendar event through the user interface for creating
the repeating calendar event;
inputting a user selection of one of the plurality of user
selectable rotation types through the user interface for creating
the repeating calendar event; and
automatically rotating, by the at least one computer
system, the candidates for the rotating role responsive to the
selected one of the plurality of user selectable rotation types to
select a candidate for the rotating role at each of a plurality of
occurrences of the repeating calendar event.

PRIOR ART
Cree US 4,817,018 Mar. 28, 1989
Digate US 2004/0161090 A1 Aug. 19, 2004
Appeal 2011-011020
Application 11/428,233
3

GROUND OF REJECTION
Claims 1-22 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Digate and Cree.

OPINION
The Examiner finds that Digate discloses all of the limitations of
independent claim 1 except for “generating a user interface for creating a
repeating calendar event.” See Ans. 5. The Examiner further finds that Cree
discloses this feature. Id. (citing Cree, col. 24, ll. 17-30). Based on these
findings, the Examiner concludes that it would have been obvious
to combine determining and rotating meeting attendees as
taught by Digate with the creating a recurring meeting
functionality of Cree since the claimed invention is merely a
combination of old elements, and in the combination each
element merely would have performed the same function as it
did separately, and one of ordinary skill in the art would have
recognized that the results of the combination were predictable.
Further, the combination enables a meeting organizer to
schedule attendance for recurring meetings in a more efficient
manner, thus further enhancing the functionality of Digate.
Ans. 5.
Appellants argue that “the Digate lifeline is created for association
with a lifeline name, and members of the lifeline are expressly invited to join
it, prior to its distribution, independent from the scheduling of any specific
event.” Reply Br. 5. We understand Appellants to be arguing that because
Digate’s teachings are directed to the creation of a lifeline, rather than the
creation of a calendar event, a person of ordinary skill in the art would not
have combined the teachings of Digate with the teachings of Cree in the
manner proposed by the Examiner.
Appeal 2011-011020
Application 11/428,233
4
We agree. Digate’s lifelines are used to facilitate conference
scheduling, information distribution, and communication in a real-time
communications environment. See Digate, para. [0003]. As such, Digate
does not appear to be concerned with advanced scheduling and recurring
meetings. Although, Digate states that “[e]vents may also be time related,
indicating the arrival of a specific time, a recurring time, an elapsed time,
and/or user inaction,” as cited by the Examiner (Ans. 12), when read in
context, the “recurring time” refers to a recurring passage of time as opposed
to a recurring meeting. Digate, para. [0062]; see also Digate, Fig. 9.
Accordingly, there appears to be no need to combine Cree’s teaching of
generating a user interface for creating a repeating calendar event with
Digate’s method.
Furthermore, while Digate describes the automatic rotation of
candidate roles, Digate does so in the context of the creation of specific
requests. See Digate, para. [0045]. Thus, in Digate each request for a
calendar event may trigger the automatic rotation of candidate roles.
However, there is no indication in Digate that a request for a repeating
calendar event would be treated differently than a request for a single
calendar event (i.e., the request for a repeating calendar event could trigger
the automatic rotation of candidate roles, but once those roles are set, they
would remain the same for all occurrences of the repeating calendar event).
Thus, even if there were a need to combine Cree’s teaching of generating a
user interface for creating a repeating calendar event with Digate’s method,
the resulting method would not automatically rotate the candidates “at each
of a plurality of occurrences of the repeating calendar event” as required by
claim 1.
Appeal 2011-011020
Application 11/428,233
5
For these reasons, we do not sustain the Examiner’s rejection of
independent claim 1, and claims 2-10 which depend therefrom.
The Examiner’s rejection of independent claims 11 and 22 is similarly
deficient. Accordingly, we do not sustain the Examiner’s rejection of claims
11 and 22, and claims 12-21 which depend from claim 11.

DECISION
The Examiner’s rejection of claims 1-11 is REVERSED.

REVERSED

hh