Ex Parte Shahine et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Nov 18, 2013

11464717 (P.T.A.B. Nov. 18, 2013)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
____________

BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
____________

Ex parte OMAR H. SHAHINE and NIRANJAN VASU
____________

Appeal 2011-011273
Application 11/464,717
Technology Center 3600
____________

Before: JOSEPH A. FISCHETTI, MICHAEL W. KIM, and PHILIP J.
HOFFMANN, Administrative Patent Judges.

KIM, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL
Appeal 2011-011273
Application 11/464,717

2
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
This is an appeal from the final rejection of claims 1-3, 5-7, and 10-
221. We have jurisdiction to review the case under 35 U.S.C. §§ 134 and 6.
The invention relates to a method for advertisers to target specific
calendar users with the advertisers’ events (Spec., para. [0005]).
Claim 1, reproduced below, is further illustrative of the claimed
subject matter.
1. A method of targeted advertising in association
with the use of a calendar application program of a user,
comprising the steps of:
(a) providing a calendar user interface on a display
device, the calendar user interface having a first and a second
display area;
(b) outputting a portion of a user’s calendar in the first
display area of the calendar user interface;
(c) obtaining a plurality of advertisements having a
correlation between targeting criteria and the user’s profile
information, wherein each of the plurality of advertisements
corresponds to [an] event that may be placed in a calendar; and
(d) displaying the plurality of advertisements in the
second display area of the calendar user interface, wherein each
of the plurality of advertisements displayed in the second
display area of the calendar user interface includes an
actionable control for adding the corresponding event to the
user’s calendar.

1 Our decision will make reference to the Appellants’ Appeal Brief (“App.
Br.,” filed January 10, 2011), and the Examiner’s Answer (“Ans.,” mailed
March 30, 2011).
Appeal 2011-011273
Application 10/464,717

3
THE REJECTION
The Examiner rejected claims 1-3, 5-7, and 10-22 under 35 U.S.C.
102(b) as anticipated by Fairbanks (US 2005/0197894 A1, pub. Sep. 8,
2005).
We REVERSE.
ANALYSIS
Anticipation Rejection of Claims 1-3, 5-7, and 10-22
We are persuaded the Examiner erred in asserting that Fairbanks
discloses “wherein each of the plurality of advertisements displayed in the
second display area of the calendar user interface includes an actionable
control for adding the corresponding event to the user’s calendar,” as recited
in independent claim 1 (App. Br. 13-16). Independent claims 7 and 18 recite
similar limitations. The Examiner cites content/calendar 170 of Figure 4 of
Fairbanks as corresponding to the recited user’s calendar, and advertisement
214, 216 of Figure 4 of Fairbanks as corresponding to the plurality of
advertisements. Content/calendar 170 includes a listing of calendared
events. Accordingly, the recited actionable item, as applied to Fairbanks,
must reside in advertisement 214, 216 and have the functionality to add the
event in advertisement 214, 216 to content/calendar 170.
For the actionable item, the Examiner cites paragraphs [0060]-[0062]
and [0077] of Fairbanks. Those paragraphs disclose event information
including links that may allow a user to input a URL or an email address, so
as to automatically link an event to a calendar associated with a user’s
computer, personal management software, PDA, or the like. When these
paragraphs are read in conjunction with Figure 4, the most reasonable
interpretation is that the calendared events in content/calendar 170, and not
Appeal 2011-011273
Application 10/464,717

4
advertisement 214, 216, include links to allow a user to input a URL or an
email address, so as to automatically link an event to a calendar associated
with a user’s computer, personal management software, PDA, or the like. In
this way, content/calendar 170 and another user’s calendar would be
synchronized. And as this is an anticipation rejection, the Examiner cannot
modify Fairbanks to move the link from content/calendar 170 to
advertisement 214, 216.
We do not sustain the rejection of independent claims 1, 7, and 18, or
their dependent claims 2, 3, 5, 6, 10-17, and 19-22.
DECISION
The decision of the Examiner to reject claims 1-3, 5-7, and 10-22 is
REVERSED.

REVERSED

mls