Ex Parte Seth et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

May 14, 2013

11095934 (P.T.A.B. May. 14, 2013)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE 1
___________ 2
3
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD 4
___________ 5
6
Ex parte SHASHI SETH, 7
SERGIO MONSALVE, 8
DAVID FELLER, 9
ROBERT DEAN VERES, 10
and ERIK RANNALA 11
___________ 12
13
Appeal 2011-004528 14
Application 11/095,934 15
Technology Center 3600 16
___________ 17
18
19
Before ANTON W. FETTING, JOSEPH A. FISCHETTI, and 20
MICHAEL W. KIM, Administrative Patent Judges. 21
FETTING, Administrative Patent Judge. 22
DECISION ON APPEAL 23
Appeal 2011-004528
Application 11/095,934

2
STATEMENT OF THE CASE1 1

1 Our decision will make reference to the Appellants’ Appeal Brief (“App.
Br.,” filed August 9, 2010) and Reply Brief (“Reply Br.,” filed November
22, 2010), and the Examiner’s Answer (“Ans.,” mailed September 22,
2010).
Shashi Seth, Sergio Monsalve, David Feller, Robert Dean Veres, and 2
Erik Rannala (Appellants) seek review under 35 U.S.C. § 134 of a final 3
rejection of claims 1-7, 9-13, 15-19, and 21-38, the only claims pending in 4
the application on appeal. We have jurisdiction over the appeal pursuant to 5
35 U.S.C. § 6(b). 6
Appellants invented a way of services scheduling (Specification para 7
[0001]). 8
An understanding of the invention can be derived from a reading of 9
exemplary claim 1, which is reproduced below [bracketed matter and some 10
paragraphing added]. 11
1. A computer-implemented system comprising: 12
[1a] a memory device; 13
and 14
[1b] a processor coupled to the memory device, the processor to 15
implement: 16
[2] a publisher module 17
to publish scheduling Graphical User Interface (GUI), 18
the scheduling GUI to display simultaneously 19
a listing of at least one time block at which a 20
service provider is available to provide a service 21
and 22
a visible bid indicator control 23
Appeal 2011-004528
Application 11/095,934

3
associated with the listing of the at least one 1
time block 2
for effectuating a price submission 3
from a service consumer; 4
and 5
[3] an interface 6
to receive, 7
via a network communication, 8
the schedule information 9
from the service provider, 10
and 11
to receive, 12
via a network communication, 13
from the service consumer 14
the price submission 15
in connection with the at least one time 16
block, 17
the price submission effectuated from the 18
scheduling GUI. 19
The Examiner relies upon the following prior art: 20
Brown US 2003/0004856 A1 Jan. 2, 2003
Blants
Bailey
US 6,732,080 B1
US 2005/0283420 A1
May 4, 2004
Dec. 22, 2005
Claims 1, 3-7, 9-11, 15, 16, 19, 21, 22, 24-26, 28, 30-33, and 35-38 stand 21
rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) as anticipated by Brown. 22
Claims 17 and 18 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as 23
unpatentable over Brown. 24
Appeal 2011-004528
Application 11/095,934

4
Claims 2, 12, 13, 27, and 29 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as 1
unpatentable over Brown and Bailey. 2
Claims 23 and 34 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as 3
unpatentable over Brown and Blants. 4
ISSUES 5
The issue of obviousness turns on whether Brown discloses the 6
simultaneous display of both a listing of time blocks at which a service 7
provider is available, and a visible bid indicator control for effectuating a 8
price submission from a service consumer. 9
FACTS PERTINENT TO THE ISSUES 10
The following enumerated Findings of Fact (FF) are believed to be 11
supported by a preponderance of the evidence. 12
Facts Related to the Prior Art 13
Brown 14
01. Brown is directed to scheduling events and bids for an auction. 15
(Brown, para. [0007]). 16
17
Appeal 2011-004528
Application 11/095,934

5
02. Brown discloses a listing of at least one time block at which a 1
service provider is available to provide a service, as shown at the 2
bid submittal form 570, in Figure 12, reproduced below: 3
4
Figure 12 of Brown shows time block listing and bids. 5
03. Brown discloses a visible bid indicator control at each time slot, 6
in that a user: 7
... may enter a bid through the bid submittal form 570 by 8
selecting a time slot in the HTML implementation of the 9
bid submittal form displayed in the service provider's 10
computer web browser. In response to selection of the 11
time slot, the PIM server 24 would transmit a further 12
HTML template to display a dialog box in which the 13
Appeal 2011-004528
Application 11/095,934

6
bidder may enter the bid parameters and transmit such 1
bid parameters back to the PIM server 24. 2
(Brown, para. [0062]). 3
ANALYSIS 4
Claims 1, 3-7, 9-11, 15, 16, 19, 21, 22, 24-26, 28, 30-33, and 35-38 rejected 5
under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) as anticipated by Brown. 6
We affirm the rejection of claim 1. Appellants argue independent claims 7
15, 26, 31, and 36 together by reference to arguments directed to claim 1. 8
App. Br. 14, Reply Br. 6. We therefore select claim 1 as representative. 9
Appellants do not provide a substantive argument as to the separate 10
patentability of claims 3-7 and 9-11 that depend from claim 1; claims 16, 19, 11
21, 22, 24, and 25 that depend from claim 15; claims 28 and 30 that depend 12
from claim 26; claims 32, 33, and 35 that depend from claim 31; and claims 13
37 and 38 that depend from claim 36. Therefore, we address only claim 1, 14
and claims 3-7, 9-11, 15, 16, 19, 21, 22, 24-26, 28, 30-33, and 35-38 fall 15
with claim 1. See 37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(1)(vii). 16
We are not persuaded of error by Appellants’ argument that Brown does 17
not “disclose two visual elements displayed simultaneously, one of which is 18
a listing of a time block at which a service provider is available to provide a 19
service and the other is a control for effectuating a price submission that is 20
associated with the listing (termed ‘a visual bid indicator control’).” App. 21
Br. 13-14. See also Reply Br. 1-5. This is because Brown discloses a time 22
block at which a service provider is available to provide a service, in the 23
form of bid submittal form 570. FF 02. Brown also discloses a visual bid 24
indicator control in form 570 at each available time slot, because selecting a 25
slot controls the bid process by opening a dialog box in which the bidder 26
Appeal 2011-004528
Application 11/095,934

7
may enter bid parameters and transmit the bid. FF 03. Therefore, Brown 1
discloses both elements displayed simultaneously, as claimed. 2
Claims 17 and 18 rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over 3
Brown. 4
We affirm the rejection of claims 17 and 18, because these claims are 5
argued only by reference to the rejection of claim 1. App. Br. 14-15. Reply 6
Br. 6. 7
Claims 2, 12, 13, 27, and 29 rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as 8
unpatentable over Brown and Bailey. 9
We affirm the rejection of claims 2, 12, 13, 27, and 29, because these 10
claims are argued only by reference to the rejection of claim 1. App. Br. 15. 11
Reply Br. 6. 12
Claims 23 and 34 rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over 13
Brown and Blants. 14
We affirm the rejection of claims 23 and 34, because these claims are 15
argued only by reference to the rejection of claim 1. App. Br. 15. Reply Br. 16
6. 17
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW 18
The rejection of claims 1, 3-7, 9-11, 15, 16, 19, 21, 22, 24-26, 28, 30-33, 19
and 35-38 under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) as anticipated by Brown is proper. 20
The rejection of claims 17 and 18 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as 21
unpatentable over Brown is proper. 22
The rejection of claims 2, 12, 13, 27, and 29 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as 23
unpatentable over Brown and Bailey is proper. 24
Appeal 2011-004528
Application 11/095,934

8
The rejection of claims 23 and 34 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as 1
unpatentable over Brown and Blants is proper. 2
DECISION 3
The rejection of claims 1-7, 9-13, 15-19, and 21-38 is affirmed. 4
No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with this 5
appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a). See 37 C.F.R. 6
§ 1.136(a)(1)(iv) (2011). 7
8
AFFIRMED 9
10
11
12
mls 13