AVAYA INC.

Patent Trials and Appeals Board

Aug 31, 2020

2020002607 (P.T.A.B. Aug. 31, 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.
13/832,112 03/15/2013 Neil O'Connor 413039-US-
NP/AVA059PA
3477
136582 7590 08/31/2020
STEVENS & SHOWALTER, LLP
Box AVAYA Inc.
7019 Corporate Way
Dayton, OH 45459-4238
EXAMINER
FRUNZI, VICTORIA E.
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
3688
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
08/31/2020 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):
pair_avaya@firsttofile.com
pto@sspatlaw.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte NEIL O'CONNOR, TONY MCCORMACK, and PAUL D'ARCY
Appeal 2020-002607
Application 13/832,112
Technology Center 3600
Before BRADLEY W. BAUMEISTER, NABEEL U. KHAN, and
PHILLIP A. BENNETT, Administrative Patent Judges.
KHAN, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 134(a), Appellant1 appeals from the
Examiner’s decision to reject claims 21–37. Claims 1–20 have been
cancelled. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We AFFIRM.

1 We use the word “Appellant” to refer to “applicant” as defined in 37
C.F.R. § 1.42(a). Appellant identifies the real party in interest as Avaya,
Inc. Appeal Br. 2.
Appeal 2020-002607
Application 13/832,112
2
CLAIMED SUBJECT MATTER
Appellant describes the claimed invention as follows:
A business development system for an enterprise is
provided. The business development system includes a target
searching module that seeks and engages a potential target in a
promotional activity for gaining reward points. The business
development system further includes a strategy determining
module that analyzes circumstances for determining a suitable
persona and interaction strategy for engaging the potential target.
The business development system further includes a strategy
executing module that interactively engages with the potential
target by applying the determined persona and strategy for
engaging the potential target into the promotional activity.
Additionally, the business development system includes a
strategy sharing module that stores information related to
interaction with the potential target in an experience database.
Abstract.
Claim 21, reproduced below with annotations, is illustrative of the
claimed subject matter:
21. A system in a contact center comprising:
a server;
a communication link that couples the server to an external
communication system, wherein the external communication
system is communicatively coupled to a plurality of end-user
devices;
wherein the server comprises:
a processor;
a computer-readable medium coupled to the
processor; and
an experience database coupled to the processor;
wherein the computer-readable medium comprises
a plurality of web robots coupled as a network and
comprising computer-readable instructions, the plurality
of web robots each comprising:
a set of target searching programmed
instructions that causes the processor to search the
Appeal 2020-002607
Application 13/832,112
3
external communication system for a target entity of
a promotional sales activity;
a set of strategy determining programmed
instructions that causes the processor to determine a
strategy to engage the target entity into the
promotional sales activity, wherein the strategy is
selected by the processor based on a plurality of
strategies and associated strategy results stored in
the experience database shared among the plurality
of web robots;
a set of strategy executing programmed
instructions that causes the processor to execute the
strategy to communicate with the target entity
during the promotional sales activity by selecting a
persona corresponding to the target entity; and
a set of strategy sharing programmed
instructions that causes the processor to store results
of the strategy executed by the set of strategy
executing programmed instructions in the
experience database, thereby indirectly
collaborating amongst the plurality of web robots to
create a common repository of neural patterns
shared amongst the plurality of web robots.

Appeal Br. 18 (Claims Appendix).
Appeal 2020-002607
Application 13/832,112
4
REFERENCES
The Examiner relies upon the following prior art:
Name Reference Date
Garcia US 2006/0053047 Al Mar. 9, 2006
Buford US 2012/0030289 Al Feb. 2, 2012
Estes US 2012/0059776 Al Mar. 8, 2012
Estill US 8,244,567 B2 Aug. 14, 2012
Spivack US 2012/0278164 Al Nov. 1, 2012
Swanson US 2014/0040786 Al Feb. 6, 2014
Smith US 2014/0129344 Al May 8, 2014
REJECTIONS
1. Claims 21–37 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 101 as directed
to a judicial exception to patent-eligible subject matter. Final Act. 2–4.
2. Claims 21, 24, and 27–29 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a) as unpatentable over Smith and Buford. Final Act. 10–16.
3. Claims 22 and 23 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
unpatentable over Smith, Buford, and Spivack. Final Act. 11–13.
4. Claims 25, 26, and 33 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a)
as unpatentable over Smith, Buford, and Estes. Final Act. 13–15.
5. Claims 30, 32, 35, and 36 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a) as unpatentable over Smith, Buford, and Garcia. Final Act. 16–21.
6. Claim 31 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
unpatentable over Smith, Buford, and Swanson. Final Act. 21–22.
7. Claim 34 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
unpatentable over Smith, Buford, and Estill. Final Act. 22–23.
8. Claim 37 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
unpatentable over Smith, Buford, Garcia, and Spivack. Final Act. 23–24.
Appeal 2020-002607
Application 13/832,112
5
OPINION
Rejection under 35 U.S.C. § 101
Legal Principles
An invention is patent-eligible if it claims a “new and useful process,
machine, manufacture, or composition of matter.” 35 U.S.C. § 101.
However, the Supreme Court has long interpreted 35 U.S.C. § 101 to include
implicit exceptions: “[l]aws of nature, natural phenomena, and abstract
ideas” are not patentable. E.g., Alice Corp. v. CLS Bank Int’l, 573 U.S. 208,
216 (2014).
In determining whether a claim falls within an excluded category, we
are guided by the Supreme Court’s two-step framework, described in Mayo
and Alice. Alice, 573 U.S. at 217–18 (citing Mayo Collaborative Servs. v.
Prometheus Labs., Inc., 566 U.S. 66, 75–77 (2012)). In accordance with
that framework, we first determine what concept the claim is “directed to.”
See Alice, 573 U.S. at 219 (“On their face, the claims before us are drawn to
the concept of intermediated settlement, i.e., the use of a third party to
mitigate settlement risk.”); see also Bilski v. Kappos, 561 U.S. 593, 611
(2010) (“Claims 1 and 4 in petitioners’ application explain the basic concept
of hedging, or protecting against risk.”).
Concepts determined to be abstract ideas, and thus patent ineligible,
include certain methods of organizing human activity, such as fundamental
economic practices (Alice, 573 U.S. at 219–20; Bilski, 561 U.S. at 611);
mathematical formulas (Parker v. Flook, 437 U.S. 584, 594–95 (1978)); and
mental processes (Gottschalk v. Benson, 409 U.S. 63, 67 (1972)). Concepts
determined to be patent eligible include physical and chemical processes,
such as “molding rubber products” (Diamond v. Diehr, 450 U.S. 175, 191
Appeal 2020-002607
Application 13/832,112
6
(1981)); “tanning, dyeing, making water-proof cloth, vulcanizing India
rubber, smelting ores” (id. at 182 n.7 (quoting Corning v. Burden, 56 U.S.
252, 267–68 (1853))); and manufacturing flour (Benson, 409 U.S. at 69
(citing Cochrane v. Deener, 94 U.S. 780, 785 (1876))).
In Diehr, the claim at issue recited a mathematical formula, but the
Supreme Court held that “a claim drawn to subject matter otherwise
statutory does not become nonstatutory simply because it uses a
mathematical formula.” Diehr, 450 U.S. at 187; see also id. at 191 (“We
view respondents’ claims as nothing more than a process for molding rubber
products and not as an attempt to patent a mathematical formula.”). Having
said that, the Supreme Court also indicated that a claim “seeking patent
protection for that formula in the abstract . . . is not accorded the protection
of our patent laws, and this principle cannot be circumvented by attempting
to limit the use of the formula to a particular technological environment.”
Id. (citing Benson and Flook); see, e.g., id. at 187 (“It is now commonplace
that an application of a law of nature or mathematical formula to a known
structure or process may well be deserving of patent protection.”).
If the claim is “directed to” an abstract idea, we turn to the second
step of the Alice and Mayo framework, where “we must examine the
elements of the claim to determine whether it contains an ‘inventive
concept’ sufficient to ‘transform’ the claimed abstract idea into a patent-
eligible application.” Alice, 573 U.S. at 221 (quotation marks omitted). “A
claim that recites an abstract idea must include ‘additional features’ to
ensure ‘that the [claim] is more than a drafting effort designed to
monopolize the [abstract idea].’” Id. (quoting Mayo, 566 U.S. at 77).
Appeal 2020-002607
Application 13/832,112
7
“[M]erely requir[ing] generic computer implementation[] fail[s] to transform
that abstract idea into a patent-eligible invention.” Id.
In January 2019, the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO)
published revised guidance on the application of § 101. 2019 Revised Patent
Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance, 84 Fed. Reg. 50 (Jan. 7, 2019)
(“2019 Revised Guidance”).2 “All USPTO personnel are, as a matter of
internal agency management, expected to follow the guidance.” Id. at 51;
see also October 2019 Update at 1.
Under the 2019 Revised Guidance and the October 2019 Update, we
first look to whether the claim recites:
(1) any judicial exceptions, including certain groupings of
abstract ideas (i.e., mathematical concepts, certain methods of
organizing human activity such as a fundamental economic
practice, or mental processes) (“Prong One of Step 2A”); and
(2) additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into
a practical application (see MPEP § 2106.05(a)–(c), (e)–(h)
(9th ed. Rev. 08.2017, Jan. 2018)) (“Prong Two of Step 2A”).3
2019 Revised Guidance, 84 Fed. Reg. at 52–55.

2 In response to received public comments, the Office issued further
guidance on October 17, 2019, clarifying the 2019 Revised Guidance.
USPTO, October 2019 Update: Subject Matter Eligibility (the “October
2019 Update”) (available at https://www.uspto.gov/sites/default/files/
documents/peg_oct_2019_update.pdf).
3 This evaluation is performed by (a) identifying whether there are any
additional elements recited in the claim beyond the judicial exception, and
(b) evaluating those additional elements individually and in combination to
determine whether the claim as a whole integrates the exception into a
practical application. See 2019 Revised Guidance - Section III(A)(2),
84 Fed. Reg. 54–55.
Appeal 2020-002607
Application 13/832,112
8
Only if a claim (1) recites a judicial exception and (2) does not
integrate that exception into a practical application, do we then look, under
Step 2B, to whether the claim:
(3) adds a specific limitation beyond the judicial exception that
is not “well-understood, routine, conventional” in the field (see
MPEP § 2106.05(d)); or
(4) simply appends well-understood, routine, conventional
activities previously known to the industry, specified at a high
level of generality, to the judicial exception.
2019 Revised Guidance, 84 Fed. Reg. at 52–56.
Prong One of Step 2A
Under prong one of step 2A, we first look to whether the claim recites
any judicial exceptions, including certain groupings of abstract ideas (i.e.,
mathematical concepts, certain methods of organizing human activities, or
mental processes). 2019 Revised Guidance, 84 Fed. Reg. at 52–54.
In this regard, the Examiner finds “[t]he claims recite engaging
potential targets of a promotion using target information. The Examiner
determines that the limitation falls within ‘Certain Methods of Organizing
Human Activity’ for managing personal behavior or relationships or
interactions between people.” Final Act. 2.
We start by analyzing the limitations of claim 21 to determine
whether any of the limitations recite an abstract idea. Claim 21 recites “a
plurality of web robots each comprising” the following elements: (1) “a set
of target searching programmed instructions that causes the processor to
search the external communication system for a target entity of a
promotional sales activity,” (2) “a set of strategy determining programmed
instructions that causes the processor to determine a strategy to engage the
Appeal 2020-002607
Application 13/832,112
9
target entity into the promotional sales activity, wherein the strategy is
selected by the processor based on a plurality of strategies and associated
strategy results stored in the experience database shared among the plurality
of web robots,” (3) “a set of strategy executing programmed instructions that
causes the processor to execute the strategy to communicate with the target
entity during the promotional sales activity by selecting a persona
corresponding to the target entity,” and (4) “a set of strategy sharing
programmed instructions that causes the processor to store results of the
strategy executed by the set of strategy executing programmed instructions
in the experience database, thereby indirectly collaborating amongst the
plurality of web robots to create a common repository of neural patterns
shared amongst the plurality of web robots.”
Having reviewed these limitations, we find they recite engaging a
target entity into a promotional sales activity based on a sales strategy. For
example, searching “for a target entity of a promotional sales activity” is a
step that is necessary to identify a target entity to direct the promotional
sales activity to. “Determin[ing] a strategy to engage the target entity into
the promotional sales activity” identifies the strategy to use when engaging
the target entity with a promotional sales activity. “Execut[ing] the strategy
to communicate with the target entity during the promotional sales activity
by selecting a persona corresponding to the target entity” executes the sales
strategy and selects a persona to communicate with the target entity.
The Specification describes the persona as characteristics of an avatar
of a sales person that is best suited to interact with the target customer. For
example, when the target entity is a forty year old woman, the Specification
describes selecting a “40 year old lady wearing clothes of a sales woman to
Appeal 2020-002607
Application 13/832,112
10
ensure the target entity feel comfortable in talking with persona of the bot.”
Spec. ¶ 60.
Executing a sales strategy that includes choosing the correct
characteristics of the sales agent that interacts with the customer is consistent
with engaging a target entity into a promotional sales activity based on a
sales strategy. Finally, “stor[ing] results of the strategy executed . . . thereby
indirectly collaborating amongst the plurality of web robots to create a
common repository” allows the other sales agents (web robots in this case)
to learn which strategies were more effective in engaging the target in the
promotional sales activity.
Engaging a target entity into a promotional sales activity based on a
sales strategy relates to advertising, marketing or sales activities that are
activities that fall under the category of “certain methods of organizing
human activity.” “Certain methods of organizing human activity” is a
category identified in the 2019 Revised Guidance as constituting an abstract
idea. See 2019 Revised Guidance, 84 Fed. Reg. at 52. Thus, under prong
one of step 2A, we determine the claims recite an abstract idea.
Prong Two of Step 2A
Under prong two of step 2A of the Guidance we determine whether
the claim as a whole integrates the recited abstract idea into a practical
application of the abstract idea. A claim that integrates a judicial exception
into a practical application will apply, rely on, or use the judicial exception
in a manner that imposes a meaningful limit on the judicial exception, such
that the claim is more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the
judicial exception. To evaluate whether the claims integrate the abstract
idea into a practical application, we identify whether there are any additional
Appeal 2020-002607
Application 13/832,112
11
elements recited beyond the abstract idea, and evaluate those additional
elements individually and in combination.
Some exemplary considerations laid out by the Supreme Court and the
Federal Circuit indicative that an additional element integrates an abstract
idea into a practical application include (i) an improvement in the
functioning of a computer or to another technological field, (ii) an
application of the judicial exception with, or by use of, a particular machine,
(iii) a transformation or reduction of a particular article to a different state or
thing, or (iv) a use of the judicial exception in some other meaningful way
beyond generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular
technological environment. See MPEP § 2106.05(a)–(c), (e)–(h).
Claim 21, as a whole, includes several limitations that we did not
identify above as reciting an abstract idea. We determine here whether these
limitations are indicative of additional elements that integrate the abstract
idea into a practical application of that abstract idea. For the following
reasons, we conclude that claim 21 does not recite additional elements that
integrate the abstract idea into a practical application.
Claim 21 recites “a server” that comprises “a processor; a computer-
readable medium coupled to the processor; and an experience database
coupled to the processor.” The claim also recites “a plurality of web robots
coupled as a network and comprising computer-readable instructions.”
These elements are claimed and described in the Specification at a fairly
high level.
The “server” is described generally and broadly as being “understood
to include a PBX, an ACD, an enterprise switch, or other type of
communications system switch or server, as well as other types of processor-
Appeal 2020-002607
Application 13/832,112
12
based communication control devices such as media servers, computers,
adjuncts, etc.” Spec. ¶ 29. Similarly, the “computer-readable medium” is a
term that broadly and generally “refers to any tangible storage and/or
transmission medium that participate in providing instructions to a processor
for execution.” Spec. ¶ 25. The “experience database” is described as a
database or sub-database that is used “for storing traversed/learned/
experienced information” when a sales strategy is applied to the target
entity. See Spec. ¶ 33. A “web robot” is “a piece/module of programmed
instructions that can be stored in a database.” Spec. ¶ 32. A broad but
reasonable interpretation of web robot, therefore, would include a software
module.
These elements do not improve the functionality of a computer or
other technology. Instead, the evidence indicates that these are generic
computer elements used in their routine manner. Instead of showing that the
abstract idea is used in a meaningful way, these elements simply link the
sales and advertising related abstract idea to the technological environment
of computers and networks.
Appellant argues that “the activities recited in the claims relate to
automatic bots, not humans” and that “it would be impossible for a human to
perform the tasks of the bots because they are autonomous.” Appeal Br. 10
(citing Ex Parte Aggarwal, Kohler, Swadi, No. 2018-000493; Ex Parte
Boss, Corneli, Goodman, and Hamilton, No. 2018-003891).
We disagree. As claimed, the web robots perform functions that
humans can also perform when engaging in targeted sales activity. For
example, humans can search “for a target entity of a promotional sales
activity” and “determine a strategy to engage the target entity into the
Appeal 2020-002607
Application 13/832,112
13
promotional sales activity wherein the strategy is selected” taking into
account “a plurality of strategies and associated strategy results.”
Humans can “execute the strategy” and select a persona for the
salesperson that best suits the customer. For example, sales people can be
chosen by gender and age to make the customer feel comfortable with their
experience. Finally humans can collaborate with one another by keeping a
shared repository of results of the various sales strategies and sharing those
results with each other.
The claimed “neural patterns” are a reference to neural networks that
the web robots use “for receiving, interpreting, and sharing information”
(Spec. ¶ 33) and learning “which input patterns generate reward,” (Spec.
¶ 84). Sharing information and learning from past experiences is something
characteristic of humans. The recitation of web robots as performing the
steps of the claim does not, in and of itself, indicate a practical application of
the abstract idea, in much the same way that “a patent’s recitation of a
computer [that] amounts to a mere instruction to ‘implemen[t]’ an abstract
idea ‘on . . . a computer’ . . . cannot impart patent eligibility.” Alice, 573
U.S. at 223 (quoting Mayo).
Appellant argues claim 21 recites a practical application of the recited
web bots, which, according to Appellant “is the sharing and learning of new
strategies amongst the bots.” Appeal Br. 10. This argument is unpersuasive.
Sharing and learning new strategies is part of the abstract idea of engaging a
target entity into a promotional sales activity based on a sales strategy rather
than a practical application of it. Sharing and learning new strategies is also
something human salespersons engage in when conducting collaborative
sales activities.
Appeal 2020-002607
Application 13/832,112
14
Step 2B of the Guidance
Under step 2B of the Guidance we analyze the claims to determine
whether they provide an inventive concept (i.e., whether the additional
elements amount to significantly more than the exception itself).
Considerations that are evaluated with respect to step 2B include
determining whether the claims as a whole add a specific limitation or
combination of limitations that are not well-understood, routine,
conventional activity in the field.
Appellant argues “the prior art does not teach an autonomous bot with
the exact programming in claim 21.” Appeal Br. 10. Appellant highlights
certain limitations that it argues recite “specific artificial intelligence to
handle those exact tasks in a way that uniquely allows for an easily scalable
advertisement configuration. The recited features are unconventional and
not taught or suggested by prior art.” Appeal Br. 10.
We are unpersuaded by Appellant’s arguments. First, although the
second step in the Alice/Mayo framework is termed a search for an
“inventive concept,” the analysis is not an evaluation of novelty or non-
obviousness, but rather a search for “‘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, 573 U.S. at
217–18. A novel and nonobvious claim directed to a purely abstract idea is,
nonetheless, patent-ineligible. See Mayo, 566 U.S. at 90. Second, as we
explain below in our analysis of the obviousness rejections, we disagree with
Appellant that the recited features are not taught by the prior art.
Appeal 2020-002607
Application 13/832,112
15
Conclusion
We sustain the Examiner’s rejection of claims 21–37 under 35 U.S.C.
§ 101.
Rejection under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a)
The Examiner finds the combination of Smith and Buford teaches or
suggests the limitations of claim 21. Final Act. 4–9. Appellant disagrees
and emphasizes claim 21 recites that each web robot comprises four sets of
programmed instructions: (1) the target searching programmed instructions,
(2) the strategy determining programmed instructions, (3) the strategy
executing programmed instructions, and (4) the strategy sharing
programmed instructions. See Appeal Br. 13. According to Appellant,
Smith and Buford “do[] not teach or suggest a plurality of similar elements
in which each one of those similar elements perform[s] all of the above
identified features.” Appeal Br. 13.
Appellant further argues, “the combination of Smith and Buford does
not teach or suggest a plurality of web robots that each determine the
strategy to engage the target entity based on the strategies and associated
results that are stored in the experience database shared among all of the web
robots.” Appeal Br. 13. Appellant acknowledges that “Buford discloses a
collaboration space that may have multiple entities,” but argues that “there is
no teaching or suggestion that the multiple entities share strategy results
collected in a common repository or select strategies from an experience
database.” Appeal Br. 13.
We are unpersuaded by Appellant’s arguments. The Examiner finds
Smith discloses an “advertising service” that includes a “targeting module”
and “reporting module.” Final Act. 5–6 (citing Smith ¶¶ 35, 37, 38, Fig. 1).
Appeal 2020-002607
Application 13/832,112
16
The targeting module, according to the Examiner, searches the
communication system for a target entity of a promotional sales activity.
Final Act. 5 (citing Smith, ¶ 37 (“Advertising service 122 may further
include a targeting module 124 which is configured to provide targeted
advertisements to a user of a client device 110 based on advertiser provided
advertising campaign.”)).
The Examiner also finds the advertising service teaches a set of
strategy determining programmed instructions that causes the processor to
determine a strategy to engage the target entity into the promotional sales
activity. Final Act. 5 (citing Smith ¶ 35 (“Branded persona avatars are
stored at 128 for use by the advertising service 122 in fulfilling advertising
campaigns specified by advertisers. Advertisers 260 may direct where,
when and to whom branded persona avatars should be directed based on a
number of targeting factors in an advertising campaign.”))
The Examiner finds that Smith teaches that the strategy (or advertising
campaign) is selected by the processor based on a plurality of strategies and
associated strategy results. Final Act. 6 (citing Smith ¶ 35). The Examiner
cites Smith’s Reporting Module which “tracks user interaction with branded
persona advertisements and . . . provides feedback to advertisers” (Smith
¶ 38) as indicating that the strategies are selected based strategy results.
Final Act. 6.
The Examiner acknowledges that Smith’s advertising service, while
providing some of the recited sets of programmed instructions, does not
disclose all of them. Final Act. 7. The Examiner therefore relies on Buford
as teaching a set of robots, each of which can collaborate with other robots
by sharing resources, documents, images, applications and databases. Final
Appeal 2020-002607
Application 13/832,112
17
Act. 7–8 (citing Buford ¶ 14). The Examiner finds Buford, therefore,
teaches an experience database (Buford’s database 208) in which the robots
indirectly collaborate to create a common repository of neural patterns
shared amongst the plurality of robots. Final Act. 8 (citing Buford ¶¶ 14, 47,
50).
Thus, the Examiner combines Smith and Buford to teach robots that
include all the recited sets of programmed instructions of claim 21. Ans. 7.
The Examiner provides a reason to combine the two references, stating that
Smith teaches a technique for machine learning that can be accomplished
using a neural network, and Buford teaches collaboration spaces
implemented using robots in order to share information with a plurality of
entities. Final Act. 8. The Examiner finds that one of ordinary skill would
modify Smith’s neural network to include the collaboration and sharing of
information between robots, as taught by Buford. Final Act. 8.
When the functions of Buford’s robots are combined with Smith’s
advertising service and neural network, the combination would teach robots
that each includes all of the recited sets of programmed instructions. Thus,
we disagree with Appellant’s argument that Smith and Buford “does not
teach or suggest a plurality of similar elements in which each one of those
similar elements perform all of the above identified features.”
Similarly, when Smith and Buford are combined together, the
modified robots would each determine the strategy to engage the target
entity (as taught by Smith) based on the strategies and associated results that
are stored in the experience database shared among all of the web robots (as
taught by Buford’s modified robots). Thus, we disagree with Appellant’s
argument that “there is no teaching or suggestion that the multiple entities
Appeal 2020-002607
Application 13/832,112
18
share strategy results collected in a common repository or select strategies
from an experience database” (Appeal Br. 13).
Accordingly, we sustain the Examiner’s rejection of independent
claim 21. Appellant makes the same arguments for claims 22–34 and 37 as
it does for claim 21. Therefore, we sustain the Examiner’s rejection of these
claims under 35 U.S.C. § 103.
Claim 35 and 36
Appellant argues claims 35 and 36 separately from claim 21, but
acknowledges that these claims “recite[] a computer implemented method by
a web robot having many features substantially analogous to the features of
the system of claim 21.” Appellant does not rely on any new arguments for
these claims, other than to argue that Garcia (which the Examiner relied
upon in addition to the references relied upon for claim 21) “does not
remedy the shortcomings of Buford and Smith identified above with respect
to elements in claim 21.” Appeal Br. 15.
Accordingly, for the reasons stated with respect to claim 21, we
sustain the obviousness rejection of claims 35 and 36.

DECISION SUMMARY
In summary:
Claims
Rejected
35 U.S.C.
§
Reference(s)/Basis Affirmed Reversed
21–37 101 Eligibility 21–37
21, 24, 27–
29
103(a) Smith, Buford 21, 24, 27–
29

22, 23 103(a) Smith, Buford,
Spivack
22, 23
Appeal 2020-002607
Application 13/832,112
19
25, 26, 33 103(a) Smith, Buford,
Estes
25, 26, 33
30, 32, 35,
36
103(a) Smith, Buford,
Garcia
30, 32, 35,
36

31 103(a) Smith, Buford,
Swanson
31
34 103(a) Smith, Buford,
Estill
34
37 103(a) Smith, Buford,
Garcia, Spivack
37
Overall
Outcome
21–37

TIME PERIOD FOR RESPONSE
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)(1)(iv).
AFFIRMED