MAINSOFT R&D LTD.

Patent Trials and Appeals Board

Sep 30, 2020

14569937 - (D) (P.T.A.B. Sep. 30, 2020)

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.
14/569,937 12/15/2014 Roy Sheinfeld MAIN P0329 3903
122066 7590 09/30/2020
M&B IP Analysts, LLC
500 Headquarters Plaza
Morristown, NJ 07960-7070
EXAMINER
AL HASHEMI, SANA A
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2162
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
09/30/2020 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):
eofficeaction@appcoll.com
michael.benshimon@gmail.com
pair@mb-ip.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte ROY SHEINFELD
Appeal 2019-003202
Application 14/569,937
Technology Center 2100
BEFORE: ALLEN R. MACDONALD, JEREMY J. CURCURI, and
BARBARA A. BENOIT, Administrative Patent Judges.
CURCURI, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 134(a), Appellant appeals from the
Examiner’s decision to reject claims 1–20.1 We have jurisdiction under
35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We REVERSE.

1 We use the word Appellant to refer to “applicant” as defined in 37 C.F.R.
§ 1.42(a). Appellant identifies HARMON.IE R&D LTD. as the real party in
interest. Appeal Br. 3.
Appeal 2019-003202
Application 14/569,937

2
CLAIMED SUBJECT MATTER
The claims are directed to “providing contextual content from cloud
and web sources based on analyses of calendar data existing on user
devices.” Spec. ¶ 2. Claim 1, reproduced below, is illustrative of the claimed
subject matter:
1. A method for searching and displaying contextual
data based on a future event, comprising:
receiving a request to analyze calendar data stored on a
user device, wherein the calendar data comprises information
related to the event;
generating metadata for the event based on an analysis of
the received calendar data;
identifying at least one parameter related to the event
based on the generated metadata;
searching through a plurality of web sources to find
contextual data related to the at least one identified parameter;
and
providing the found contextual data to the user device.

REFERENCES
The prior art relied upon by the Examiner is:

Name Reference Date
Geisner US 2013/0177296 A1 July 11, 2013
Ariel US 9,251,193 B2 Feb. 2, 2016

Appeal 2019-003202
Application 14/569,937

3
REJECTIONS
Claims 1–20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as obvious over Ariel
and Geisner. Final Act. 2–5.
OPINION
The Obviousness Rejection of Claims 1–20 over Ariel and Geisner
The Examiner finds Ariel and Geisner teach all limitations of claim 1.
See Final Act. 2–3. The Examiner finds Ariel teaches all limitations of claim
1 except for “the calendar data comprises information related to the event;
generating metadata for the event based on an analysis of the received
calendar data” as recited in claim 1. See Final Act. 2–3. The Examiner finds
Geisner teaches “the calendar data comprises information related to the
event; generating metadata for the event based on an analysis of the received
calendar data” as recited in claim 1. See Final Act. 3. The Examiner reasons
[i]t would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art
at the time the invention was made to incorporate Geisner[’s]
teaching in the Ariel system. [A s]killed artisan would have
been motivated to make such modification to capture images
and audio data relating to a particular user as shown in Para.
37–38.

Final Act. 3.
Among arguments, Appellant presents the following principal
argument: Ariel does not teach the recited “searching” (claim 1) step
because “there is no teaching by Ariel to search web sources based on what
the Examiner alleges to be the identified parameter, namely, the time
difference.” Appeal Br. 12; see also Reply Br. 9–12.
Appeal 2019-003202
Application 14/569,937

4
Appellant’s argument persuades us the Examiner erred in finding
Ariel teaches “searching through a plurality of web sources to find
contextual data related to the at least one identified parameter” as recited in
claim 1.
Ariel discloses
The present invention relates to control and utilization of
Personal Information[] Management (PIM) data such as
calendar and contact information in the context of personal and
professional activities. More specifically, the present invention
relates to the sharing and updating of PIM data amongst various
users and information stores.

Ariel, col. 1, ll. 29–34.
Ariel further discloses “[t]he calendar module 140 may manage
aggregated calendar data and take into account time zone differences in
calendar data as may later be distributed to users of the data aggregation
server 100.” Ariel col. 8, ll. 52–55 (emphasis added).
Ariel further discloses
It is envisioned that in some embodiments of the present
invention, various Internet spiders or web scraping technologies
may be utilized by the contacts module 160 to further acquire
presently unavailable information. In such an embodiment, a
web scraping module (not shown) could further identify a
particular contact/user profile and search various websites for
information and news pertaining to that person. If it is
determined, during spidering, that this particular person has
changed jobs, been promoted or been subject to some other event
of news-worthy importance, the contacts module 160 may update
certain contacts information/profile data.
Ariel, col. 10, ll. 53–64.
Appeal 2019-003202
Application 14/569,937

5
In the Final Action, the Examiner finds Ariel teaches “identifying at
least one parameter related to the event based on the generated metadata” as
recited in claim 1. See Final Act. 3 (citing Ariel, col. 8, ll. 47–63). According
to the Examiner, “the time difference [in Ariel] corresponds to [the]
parameter [in claim 1].” Final Act. 3.
In the Final Action, the Examiner further finds Ariel teaches
“searching through a plurality of web sources to find contextual data related
to the at least one identified parameter” as recited in claim 1. See Final Act.
3 (citing Ariel, col. 10, ll. 53–67).
However, we cannot agree with this further finding for the recited
“searching” (claim 1) step because the searching in Ariel is for information
related to a contact/user profile—not for information related to a time zone
difference, which the Examiner relies on to teach the “at least one identified
parameter” (claim 1). See Final Act. 3; see also Ariel, col. 8, ll. 52–55, col.
10, ll. 53–64.
In the Examiner’s Answer, the Examiner attempts to clarify the
Examiner’s position. See Ans. 4–5. The Examiner refers to the
Specification’s broad description of parameters described in paragraph 17,
and to Geisner’s searching described in paragraph 68. See Ans. 4.
Appellant’s Specification discloses “[t]he parameters may be, but are
not limited to, participants in the event, a location of the event, a subject of
the event, a type of event, comments received by potential participants
respective of the event, and so on.” Spec. ¶ 17.
Geisner discloses “[i]n step 310, one or more search criteria are
provided by the user or entities associated with one or more other devices.”
Gesiner ¶ 68. Geisner further discloses “one or more search criteria provided
Appeal 2019-003202
Application 14/569,937

6
in step 310 may be based on one or more keywords related to a particular
event, location, time, an individual, etc.” Geisner ¶ 68.
However, the Examiner’s response in the Examiner’s Answer does
not directly address Appellant’s argument that “there is no teaching by Ariel
to search web sources based on what the Examiner alleges to be the
identified parameter, namely, the time difference.” Appeal Br. 12. At best,
the Examiner’s Answer explains that the prior art teaches searching based on
parameters, but this is not sufficient to establish that the prior art teaches the
claim limitations as arranged in the claim.
We, therefore, do not sustain the Examiner’s rejection of claim 1.
Independent claim 11 recites the same key subject matter. We,
therefore, also do not sustain the Examiner’s rejection of claim 11.
Claims 2–10 and 12–20 variously depend from claims 1 and 11. We,
therefore, also do not sustain the Examiner’s rejection of claims 2–10 and
12–20.
CONCLUSION
The Examiner’s decision to reject claims 1–20 is reversed.
DECISION SUMMARY
In summary:

Claims
Rejected
35 U.S.C. § Reference(s)/Basis Affirmed Reversed
1–20 103 Ariel, Geisner 1–20
REVERSED