Ex Parte Stoner

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Mar 28, 2018

11153975 (P.T.A.B. Mar. 28, 2018)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE
111153,975 06/16/2005
46321 7590 03/30/2018
CRGOLAW
STEVEN M. GREENBERG
7900 Glades Road
SUITE 520
BOCA RATON, FL 33434
FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
Chris Stoner
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
ATTORNEY DOCKET NO. CONFIRMATION NO.
LOT920050052US 1
(7321-102
8373
EXAMINER
CHOY, PANG
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
3624
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
03/30/2018 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 CHRIS STONER
Appeal2016-004823
Application 11/153,975 1
Technology Center 3600
Before JOSEPH A. FISCHETTI, NINA L. MEDLOCK, and MATTHEW S.
MEYERS, Administrative Patent Judges.
FISCHETTI, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Appellant seeks our review under 35 U.S.C. § 134 of the Examiner's
final rejection of claims 1, 3, 4, 6, 10, and 14--16. We have jurisdiction
under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
1 Appellant identifies International Business Machines Corporation as the
real party in interest. (Appeal Br. 2).
Appeal 2016-004823
Application 11/153,975
We AFFIRM.
SUMMARY OF DECISION
THE INVENTION
Appellant claims a calendaring and scheduling system for storing
meeting information. (Specification i-f 1.)
Claim 1 reproduced below, is representative of the subject matter on
appeal.
1. A calendaring and scheduling (C&S) data processing system
compnsmg:
a data processing system with processor and memory;
a C&S system executing in the data processing system
comprising program code enabled upon execution in memory
of the data processing system to render a calendar view for
viewing scheduled events within a calendar, to render an
activatable user interface element associated with a plurality of
different calendar folders, to schedule a calendar event through
a user interface of the C&S system, the calendar event having a
categorization, and to receive workflow content including
documents;
a calendar folder data store in the data processing system
configured to store the plurality of different calendar folders,
each of said different calendar folders is associated with a
category and is also configured to store both calendar events
associated with said category and also to store workflow
content associated with said category;
calendar folder processing logic executing in the data
processing system comprising program code enabled upon
execution in memory of the data processing system to assign
different categorizations to different calendar folders in
memory by the C&S system, to store said calendar event in one
of said calendar folders in which said calendar event has said
2
Appeal 2016-004823
Application 11/153,975
categorization consistent with said category for said calendar
folder, to determine whether said workflow content is related to
said calendar event, to identify said calendar event associated
with said workflow content in response to determining that said
workflow content is related to said calendar event, to store said
workflow content determined to be related to said calendar
event in said calendar folder having said category consistent
with said categorization for said calendar event, resulting in
said calendar event and also said workflow content being stored
in a same calendar folder, to detect an activation of said
activatable user interface element, to display said plurality of
different calendar folders in said calendar view in response to
detecting said activation by expanding a view of the plurality of
different calendar folders, and to display only said calendar
event and also said workflow content stored upon a selection of
one of the plurality of different calendar folders from the
expended view of different calendar folders.
THE REJECTION
The Examiner relies upon the following as evidence of
unpatentability:
Jalon et al. US 2005/0039142 Al Feb. 17, 2005
(hereinafter "Jalon")
The following rejections are before us for review: 2
2 The Examiner withdrew the rejection of claims 1, 6 and 10 under 35 U.S.C.
§ 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. § 112 (pre-AIA), second paragraph. (Answer 3.)
3
Appeal 2016-004823
Application 11/153,975
Claims 1, 6, 10, and 14--16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 112(a) or
35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the
written description.
Claims 1, 3, 4, 6, 10, and 14--16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 101 as
being directed to non-statutory subject matter.
Claims 1, 3, 4, 6, 10, and 14--16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 102(e)
as being anticipated by Jal on.
FINDINGS OF FACT
We adopt the Examiner's findings as set forth on pages 8-10 of the
Final Action concerning the 35 U.S.C. § 101 rejection.
ANALYSIS
35 U.S.C. § 112(a) REJECTION
The Examiner rejected claims 1, 6, 10, and 14--16, because the claims
recite "expanding a/the view of the plurality of different calendar folders"
and claims 14--16 recite "revealing a hierarchy of different calendar folders"
as failing to comply with the written description requirement. (Final Act. 6-
7).
Appellant argues,
More specifically, Figure 2 along with paragraphs
[0015] and [0018] provide support such that those
skilled in the art would reasonably conclude that the
inventor had possession of the claimed invention.
In particular, reference 240 of Figure 2 illustrates an
4
Appeal 2016-004823
Application 11/153,975
activatable calendar folders user interface and
paragraph [0018] describes how the user interface
element provides access to a file view of different
calendar folders, such that an end user activating the
user interface element can view all related materials
ancillary to a scheduled event associated with a
selected calendar folder. Further, paragraph [0015]
references a hierarchy of folders. As such, one
skilled in the art would appreciate that when the user
interface element 240 is selected, the view of the
different folder would be shown. In other words,
the activation of the user interface element toggles
the view of the different folders between a collapsed
view and an expanded view of a hierarchy of the
different calendar folders.
(Appeal Br. 8-9).
We agree with Appellant that the disclosed storage hierarchy of
folders 180, each having an association with a different category for the
events, would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art to expand the
view of the plurality of different calendar folders depending on the level of
the hierarchy which was selected.
We, therefore, will not sustain the rejection of claims 1, 6, 10, and 14--
16 under this section.
35 U.S.C. § 102(e) REJECTION
Each of claims 1, 6 and 10 recites in one form or another,
calendar folder processing logic ... to store said
calendar event in one of said calendar folders in
which said calendar event has said categorization
5
Appeal 2016-004823
Application 11/153,975
consistent with said category for said calendar
folder, to determine whether said worliflow content
is related to said calendar event, to identify said
calendar event associated with said worliflow
content in response to determining that said
worliflow content is related to said calendar event,
to store said worliflow content determined to be
related to said calendar event in said calendar
folder having said category consistent with said
categorization for said calendar event, resulting in
said calendar event and also said worliflow content
being stored in a same calendar folder ....
(Appeal Br. 31, Claims App'x (claim 1) (emphasis added)).
The Examiner found concerning this limitation,
The calendar from which the event is taken is also
displayed at 24; the event may be moved from one
calendar to another by changing the associated
calendar appearing at 24. The details (content) of
the event are displayed at 26; not only the event be
changed but also properties associated with the
event may be changed' (ii 41-43. Thus, both the
calendar event and the event content (e.g.,
description, to-do item, and alarm) are associated
with the selected calendar [folder]); and 'a
computer server 200 on which is stored a calendar
[folder] 400 containing at least one event' (see
ii 55). Thus, as shown in Fig. 4, the detail
information (workflow content) displayed on the
main calendar view is determined based on the
selected calendar event.
(Answer 11-12 (alteration in original)).
Appellant argues,
6
Appeal 2016-004823
Application 11/153,975
in Jalon, for example in Figure 20, a user determines
what calendar a new event is associated with,
whether a default (which is determined by
Examiner) or a different user selected calendar.
Further, Jalon does not disclose the determination
of whether said workflow content is related to a
calendar event. In other words, based on Examiner's
mapping, Jalon does not describe determining
whether event data, a to do item, or an alarm is
related to an event. Instead, Jalonjust discloses that
a user can create event data, a to do item, or an alarm
and that the user can associate such with a specific
calendar. As such, Examiner fails to prove a prima
facie case.
(Appeal Br. 22).
We agree with Appellant.
Our review of paragraph 55 of Jal on reveals that Jalon discloses "a
computer server 200 on which is stored a calendar 400 containing at least
one event." In paragraph 43, Jalon discloses "To do Items" which "include
those tasks for which a specific time is not required but set for a particular
day, week, month or year, depending upon the primary date range selected."
Jalon i-f 43. The Examiner finds the claimed folder is met by the
calendar 400 in Jalon. (Answer 12).
We disagree with the Examiner because the claims require in one
form or another, "stor[ing] said calendar event in one of said calendar
folders in which said calendar event has said categorization consistent with
said category for said calendar folder, to determine whether said workflow
content is related to said calendar event, to identify said calendar event
7
Appeal 2016-004823
Application 11/153,975
associated with said workflow content in response to determining that said
workflow content is related to said calendar event. ... " The "To Do items"
window in Jalon only categorizes "depending upon the primary date range
selected" (Jalon i-f 43), but does not store data by a relational categorization
as by association of events with work flow content as required by the claims.
"A claim is anticipated only if each and every element as set forth in the
claim is found, either expressly or inherently described, in a single prior art
reference." Verdegaal Bros. v. Union Oil Co. of Cal., 814 F.2d 628, 631
(Fed. Cir.), cert. denied, 484 U.S. 827 (1987).
We do not affirm the rejection of independent claims 1, 6, and 10
under this section. Because claims 3, 4, and 14--16 depend from one of
claims 1 6, and 10, and because we cannot sustain the rejection of claims 1
and 10, the rejection of claims 3, 4, and 14--16 likewise cannot be sustained.
35 U.S.C. § 101 REJECTION
We will sustain the rejection of claims 1, 3, 4, 6, 10, and 14--16 under
35 U.S.C. § 101.
The Supreme Court
set forth a framework for distinguishing patents that claim laws
of nature, natural phenomena, and abstract ideas from those that
claim patent-eligible applications of those concepts. First, ...
determine whether the claims at issue are directed to one of those
patent-ineligible concepts. If so, we then ask, "[ w ]hat else is
there in the claims before us?" To answer that question, ...
consider the elements of each claim both individually and "as an
ordered combination" to determine whether the additional
elements "transform the nature of the claim" into a patent-
8
Appeal 2016-004823
Application 11/153,975
eligible application. [The Court] described step two of this
analysis as a search for an "'inventive concept"'-i.e., an
element or combination of elements that is "sufficient to ensure
that the patent in practice amounts to significantly more than a
patent upon the [ineligible concept] itself."
Alice Corp., Pty. Ltd. v CLS Banklnt'l, 134 S. Ct. 2347, 2355 (2014)
(second and fifth alterations in original) (citing Mayo Collaborative Servs. v.
Prometheus Labs., Inc., 566 U.S. 66, 72-73 (2012)).
To perform this test, we must first determine whether the claims at
issue are directed to a patent-ineligible concept.
Although the Court in Alice made a direct finding as to what the
claims were directed to, we find that this case's claims themselves and the
Specification provide enough information to inform one as to what they are
directed to.
The steps in claim 1 result in:
to store said calendar event in one of said calendar
folders in which said calendar event has said
categorization consistent with said category for said
calendar folder, to determine whether said
workflow content is related to said calendar event,
to identify said calendar event associated with said
workflow content in response to determining that
said workflow content is related to said calendar
event, to store said workflow content determined to
be related to said calendar event in said calendar
folder having said category consistent with said
categorization for said calendar event, resulting in
said calendar event and also said workflow content
being stored in a same calendar folder, to detect an
9
Appeal 2016-004823
Application 11/153,975
activation of said activatable user interface element,
to display said plurality of different calendar folders
in said calendar view in response to detecting said
activation by expanding a view of the plurality of
different calendar folders, and to display only said
calendar event and also said workflow content
stored upon a selection of one of the plurality of
different calendar folders from the expended view
of different calendar folders ....
The Specification further states,
Oftentimes, heavy C&S users can schedule
so many meetings that a user cannot readily locate
a particular meeting of interest in a calendar
interface. Specifically, meetings of interest can
become lost in a sea of meetings so that important
meetings cannot be readily identified among the
noise. In the context of task management, C&S
users have grown accustomed to categorizing and
filing tasks to better identify tasks of interest.
Meetings differ from tasks, however, in that
meetings are closely linked to participants, times
and locations. Thus, the preferred view for a
meeting is not a list as in the case of a task, but in a
calendar. Also, whereas tasks generally are
standalone elements, meetings often involve
ancillary documents and even tasks.
Specification Jr 4. Thus, all this evidence shows that claim 1 is directed to
collecting category specific workflow content data and relating the collected
workflow content data to a calendar event(s). It follows from prior Supreme
Court cases, and Gottschalkv. Benson, 409 U.S. 63 (1972) in particular, that
the claims at issue here are directed to an abstract idea. Relating category
10
Appeal 2016-004823
Application 11/153,975
specific workflow content data to a calendar event in a dedicated file is a
form of organizing human behavior because workflow is a working process
which uses human involvement. The patent-ineligible end of the 35 U.S.C.
§ 101 spectrum includes organizing human behavior. See Alice Corp. Pty.
Ltd., 134 S. Ct. at 2355-56. Also, we find the steps of:
i) assigning different categorizations to different calendar folders,
ii) determining whether the workflow content is related to the
calendar event, and
iii) identifying the calendar event associated with said workflow
content in response to determining that the workflow content is
related to said calendar event,
constitute physical acts by a human and/or "analyzing information by steps
people go through in their minds, or by mathematical algorithms, without
more, as essentially mental processes within the abstract-idea category."
Elec. Power Grp., LLC v. Alstom S.A., 830 F.3d 1350, 1354 (Fed. Cir.
2016); see also buySAFE, Inc. v. Google, Inc., 765 F.3d 1350 (Fed. Cir.
2014) (finding claims directed to certain arrangements involving contractual
relations are directed to abstract ideas). Thus, relating category specific
workflow content data to a calendar event in a dedicated file is an "abstract
idea" beyond the scope of § 101.
As in Alice Corp. Pty. Ltd., we need not labor to delimit the precise
contours of the "abstract ideas" category in this case. 134 S. Ct. at 2357. It
is enough to recognize that there is no meaningful distinction in the level of
11
Appeal 2016-004823
Application 11/153,975
abstraction between the concept of an intermediated settlement in Alice and
the concept of relating category specific workflow content data to a calendar
event in a dedicated file, at issue here. 134 S. Ct. at 2357. Both are squarely
within the realm of "abstract ideas" as the Court has used that term.
134 S. Ct. at 2357. That the claims do not preempt all forms of the
abstraction or may be limited to workflow content, does not make them any
less abstract. See OIP Techs., Inc. v. Amazon.com, Inc., 788 F.3d 1359,
1360----62 (Fed. Cir. 2015).
The introduction of a computer into the claims does not alter the
analysis at Mayo step two.
[T]he mere recitation of a generic computer cannot transform a
patent-ineligible abstract idea into a patent-eligible invention.
Stating an abstract idea "while adding the words 'apply it"' is not
enough for patent eligibility. Nor is limiting the use of an
abstract idea "'to a particular technological environment."'
Stating an abstract idea while adding the words "apply it with a
computer" simply combines those two steps, with the same
deficient result. Thus, if a patent's recitation of a computer
amounts to a mere instruction to "implemen[t]" an abstract idea
"on ... a computer," that addition cannot impart patent eligibility.
This conclusion accords with the pre-emption concern that
undergirds our § 101 jurisprudence. Given the ubiquity of
computers, wholly generic computer implementation is not
generally the sort of "additional featur[ e ]" that provides any
"practical assurance that the process is more than a drafting effort
designed to monopolize the [abstract idea] itself."
Alice Corp. Pty. Ltd., 134 S. Ct. at 2358 (alterations in original) (citations
omitted).
12
Appeal 2016-004823
Application 11/153,975
"[T]he relevant question is whether the claims here do more than
simply instruct the practitioner to implement the abstract idea ... on a
generic computer." Alice Corp. Pty. Ltd., 134 S. Ct. at 2359. They do not.
Taking the claim elements separately, the function performed by the
computer at each step of the process is purely conventional. Using a
computer to take in data, compute a result, and return the result to a user
amounts to electronic data query and retrieval-some of the most basic
functions of a computer. All of these computer functions are well-
understood, routine, conventional activities previously known to the
industry. In short, each step does no more than require a generic computer
to perform generic computer functions.
Considered as an ordered combination, the computer components of
Appellant's method add nothing that is not already present when the steps
are considered separately. Viewed as a whole, Appellant's claims simply
recite the concept of relating category specific workflow content data to a
calendar event in a dedicated file. The claims do not, for example, purport
to improve the functioning of the computer itself. Nor do they effect an
improvement in any other technology or technical field. Instead, the claims
at issue amount to nothing significantly more than instructions for relating
category specific workflow content data to a calendar event in a dedicated
file. Under our precedents, that is not enough to transform an abstract idea
into a patent-eligible invention. See Alice Corp. Pty. Ltd., 134 S. Ct.
at 2360.
13
Appeal 2016-004823
Application 11/153,975
As to the structural claims, they
are no different from the method claims in substance. The
method claims recite the abstract idea implemented on a generic
computer; the system claims recite a handful of generic computer
components configured to implement the same idea. This Court
has long "warn[ ed] ... against" interpreting § 101 "in ways that
make patent eligibility 'depend simply on the draftsman's art."'
Alice Corp. Pty. Ltd., 134 S. Ct._at 2360 (alterations in original) (citing Mayo
Collaborative Servs., 566 U.S. at 72).
We have reviewed all the arguments (Appeal Br. 11-17) Appellant
has submitted concerning the patent eligibility of the claims before us which
stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 101. We find that our analysis above
substantially covers the substance of all the arguments which have been
made. But, for purposes of completeness, we will address various
arguments in order to make individual rebuttals of same.
Appellant argues,
As in DDR Holdings where the Federal Circuit
found the claims statutory under § 101 and noted
that the claims are necessarily rooted in computer
technology in order to overcome a problem
specifically arising in the realm of computer
networks, the claimed solution in the instant
Application is necessarily rooted in computer
technology in order to overcome a problem
specifically directed at the lack of current C&S
systems allowing access to all related materials
produced in consequence of a meeting.
(Appeal Br. 13).
In light of the breadth of the claim, the Appellant's argument is not
14
Appeal 2016-004823
Application 11/153,975
persuasive as to error in the rejection because first, for example, claim 1
does not even require an internet connection as was claimed in DDR.
Second, in DDR, the claims at issue involved, inter alia, "web pages
display[ing] at least one active link associated with a commerce object
associated with a buying opportunity of a selected one of a plurality of
merchants" (claim 1 of U.S. 7,818,399 assigned to DDRHoldings LLC).
There is no such claim element with this degree of detail here before us. All
that is required by the claims before us are generically recited "data
processing system[ s] with processor[ s] and memory." The Specification
supports the view that these items are conventional. See, e.g., Specification
irir 14, 15.
Appellant next argues, "it is clear that Appellant's claimed invention
directed to providing, in a calendar and scheduling (C&S) system, access to
all related materials ancillary to a scheduled event is not directed to an idea
of organizing human activities." (Appeal Br. 16).
We disagree with Appellant because even if the argument could be
made that workflow does not incorporate organizing human activity, as
found above, the claims are also directed to "analyzing information by steps
people go through in their minds, or by mathematical algorithms, without
more, as essentially mental processes within the abstract-idea category."
Elec. Power Grp., LLC, 830 F.3d at 1354. "Adding one abstract idea ... to
another abstract idea ... does not render the claim non-abstract."
RecogniCorp, LLC v. Nintendo Co., 855 F.3d 1322, 1327 (Fed. Cir. 2017).
15
Appeal 2016-004823
Application 11/153,975
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
We conclude the Examiner did err in rejecting claims 1, 3, 4, 6, 10,
and 14--16 under 35 U.S.C. § 102(e).
We conclude the Examiner did not err in rejecting claims 1, 3, 4, 6,
10, and 14--16 under 35 U.S.C. § 101.
We conclude the Examiner did err in rejecting claims 1, 6, 10, and
14-16under 35 U.S.C. § 112(a).
DECISION
The decision of the Examiner to reject claims 1, 3, 4, 6, 10, and 14--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). See 37 C.F.R.
§ 1.136(a)(l )(iv).
AFFIRMED
16