Ex Parte Rokosz et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Sep 20, 2017

14086772 (P.T.A.B. Sep. 20, 2017)

United States Patent and Trademark Office
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
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE FIRST NAMED INVENTOR ATTORNEY DOCKET NO. CONFIRMATION NO.
14/086,772 11/21/2013 Vaughn T. Rokosz LOT920050010US2
(091DIV)
5069
46321 7590
CRGO LAW
STEVEN M. GREENBERG
7900 Glades Road
SUITE 520
BOCA RATON, EL 33434
09/22/2017 EXAMINER
MILLER, ALAN S
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
3623
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
09/22/2017 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 VAUGHN T. ROKOSZ
and
PATRICK O'SULLIVAN1
Appeal 2016-002563
Application 14/086,772
Technology Center 3600
Before JEAN R. HOMERE, CARLA M. KRIVAK, and
JOSEPH P. LENTIVECH, Administrative Patent Judges.
KRIVAK, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
Appellants appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from a final rejection of
claims 7—16. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We affirm.
1 Appellants identify the applicant as International Business Machines
Corporation, Armonk, NY.
Appeal 2016-002563
Application 14/086,772
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Appellants’ invention is directed to a “field of time zone processing
when scheduling meetings, activities or appointments in a calendaring or
scheduling system” (Spec. 11). That is, the invention visualizes multiple
time zones in a calendaring and scheduling application (see Title).
Independent claim 11, reproduced below, is exemplary of the subject
matter on appeal.
11. A machine readable storage comprising hardware having stored
thereon a computer program for visualizing multiple time zones in a
calendaring and scheduling system, the computer program comprising
a routine set of instructions which when executed by a machine causes
the machine to perform the steps of:
defining an event for a preferred time and a specified set of
participants;
determining a time zone for each of said participants and also
computing a local time in said determined time zone for each of said
participants that corresponds to said preferred time;
aligning a visual display of respectively different ranges of
times for each of the participants at a local time in each of the ranges
of times corresponding to the preferred time; and,
rendering a user interface showing for each of said participants,
the aligned visual display of respectively different ranges of times.
REJECTION
The Examiner rejected claims under 35U.S.C. § 101 as directed to
non-statutory subject matter.
ANALYSIS
Appellants contend the Examiner erred in rejecting independent
claims 7 and 11 as: 1) the Examiner has “neglected to provide any analysis
2
Appeal 2016-002563
Application 14/086,772
specific to Appellants’ claim language or specification” and thus is “not
sufficient to shift the burden of proof to Appellants” (App. Br. 5—6); 2) being
non-statutory because the claims are directed to specialized computing
functions (App. Br. 5); and 3) the claims are drawn to “a specific way of
‘doing something with a computer’” (App. Br. 9). We do not agree.
We agree with and adopt the Examiner’s findings in the Final Action
(2—4) and the Answer (2—10). Initially we note the Examiner has established
a prima facie case. Our reviewing court stated in In re Jung
As this court has repeatedly noted, “the prima facie case is
merely a procedural device that enables an appropriate shift of
the burden of production.” Hyatt v. Dudas, 492 F.3d 1365, 1369
(Fed. Cir. 2007) (citing In re Oetiker, 977 F.2d 1443, 1445 (Fed.
Cir. 1992). See also In re Piasecki, 745 F.2d 1468, 1472 (Fed.
Cir. 1984). The Patent and Trademark Office (“PTO”) satisfies
its initial burden of production by “adequately explaining] the
shortcomings it perceives so that the applicant is properly
notified and able to respond.” Hyatt, 492 F.3d at 1370. In other
words, the PTO carries its procedural burden of establishing a
prima facie case when its rejection satisfies 35U.S.C. §132, in
“notifying] the applicant . . . [by] stating the reasons for [its]
rejection, or objection or requirement, together with such
information and references as may be useful in judging of the
propriety of continuing the prosecution of [the] application.” 35
U.S.C. § 132.
(In re Jung, 637 F.3d 1356, 1362 (Fed. Cir. 2011). In the present case, both
the Final Action (Final Act. 2-4) and the Answer (2-4) put Appellants on
notice that the Examiner considered Appellants’ claims as being directed to
non-statutory subject matter under 35 U.S.C. § 101.
We also agree with the Examiner that Appellants’ claims are not
directed to something substantially more than the “abstract idea of
3
Appeal 2016-002563
Application 14/086,772
visualizing time zones in a calendar” (Ans. 4). Appellants recite the claim
language and state their “claims are directed to something substantially more
than an abstract idea of visualizing time zones in a calendar” (App. Br. 7—9);
rather, Appellants’ claim “a computer hardware system is programmed to
perform C&S functions through which multiple time zones are visualized”
(App. Br. 8). We also note Appellants’ rely on paragraphs 14—17 of their
Specification to support this argument (App. Br. 7—9). However, the
features Appellants’ rely on (e.g., computing a stagger value) are not recited
in the claims (App. Br. 8—9). Thus, we agree with the Examiner the claims
are directed to an abstract idea under Step 1 of Alice (Alice Corp. Pty. Ltd. v.
CLSBankInt'l, 134 S. Ct. 2347 (2014)).
The Examiner also correctly finds the claims fail under Step 2 of Alice
(a determination that a claim directed to a judicial exception recites elements
that amount to significantly more than the exception) (Ans. 5). As the
Examiner finds, Appellants’ claims simply organize and compare data,
which can be performed mentally or with pen and paper (id.). We also agree
with the Examiner’s analysis and breakdown of the claim elements (Ans. 6—
7).
Lastly, we do not agree with Appellants’ argument that their claims
“are drawn to a specific way of ‘doing something with a computer’” because
they require complex programming to enable visualization of multiple time
zones is misplaced (App. Br. 9). As the Examiner finds, Appellants’
Specification states that the “invention can be realized in hardware,
software, or a combination of hardware and software” and that “a general
purpose computer system with a computer program’'' can be used (Ans. 8—
10; Specification || 20, 21).
4
Appeal 2016-002563
Application 14/086,772
Thus, we agree with the Examiner that Appellants’ claims are directed
to an abstract idea as the claims recite “determining time zones for
participants of a meeting, and aligning the time zones visually on a display,”
which is merely organizing information through correlations not tied to a
specific structure or machine and which “employs algorithms to manipulate
existing information to generate additional information” (Ans. 2—3).
DECISION
The Examiner’s decision rejecting claims 7—16 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)(l)(iv).
AFFIRMED
5