Search Team

Search by Last Name
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
I
J
K
L
M
N
O
P
Q
R
S
T
U
V
W
X
Y
Z

Ex Parte Al Chakra, Melvin r. Jones, Jr. and Julie A. Meserve.

Representative Claim

  1. A method for determining meeting participants in an electronic calendar, the method comprising:
    [A] identifying, based on user input, a first set of participants to invite to a meeting scheduled in the electronic calendar, wherein the meeting is associated with a topic;
    [B]identifying a second set of participants based on the topic associated with the meeting;
    [C] determining a union of the first and second sets of participants;
    [D] generating, for the union of the first and second sets of participants, calendar entries in the electronic calendar;
    [E] presenting the calendar entries in the electronic calendar;
    [F] determining, based on scheduling information in the electronic calendar, that at least one of the participants has a scheduling conflict;
    [G] determining, based on participant profile information associated with the electronic calendar, one or more alternate participants for the meeting; and
    [H] presenting the one or more alternate meeting participants.

Posture:

Appeal from USPTO claim rejections.

Abstract Idea: Yes

“As in Alice Corp. Pty. Ltd., we need not labor to delimit the precise contours of the “abstract ideas” category in this case. It is enough to recognize that there is no meaningful distinction in the level of abstraction between the concept of risk hedging in Bilski and the concept of determining meeting participants at issue here. Both are squarely within the realm of ‘abstract ideas’ as the Court has used that term. See Alice Corp. Pty. Ltd., 134 S. Ct. at 2357.”

Something More: No

“Considered as an ordered combination, the limitations of Appellants’ method add nothing that is not already present when the steps are considered separately. Viewed as a whole, Appellants’ method claims simply recite the concept of determining meeting participants. Even were the steps implied as being performed on a computer, the method claims do not, for example, purport to improve the functioning of a 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 an instruction to apply the abstract idea of managing intent using some unspecified, generic graphical interface. Under our precedents, that is not enough to transform an abstract idea into a patent-eligible invention.”