C CONJUNCTION AB

Patent Trials and Appeals Board

Aug 20, 2020

15559279 - (D) (P.T.A.B. Aug. 20, 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.
15/559,279 09/18/2017 Omid RAISI 1003301-000612 3185
21839 7590 08/20/2020
BUCHANAN, INGERSOLL & ROONEY PC
POST OFFICE BOX 1404
ALEXANDRIA, VA 22313-1404
EXAMINER
SITTNER, MATTHEW T
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
3682
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
08/20/2020 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):
ADIPDOC1@BIPC.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
____________________

BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
____________________

Ex parte OMID RAISI
__________________

Appeal 2020-002024
Application 15/559,279
Technology Center 3600
____________________

Before JAMES P. CALVE, KENNETH G. SCHOPFER, and
BRADLEY B. BAYAT, Administrative Patent Judges.

CALVE, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL

STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 134(a), Appellant1 appeals from the decision
of the Examiner to reject claims 20–36 and 41, which are all of the pending
claims.2 Appeal Br. 1. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We AFFIRM.

1 “Appellant” refers to “applicant” as defined in 37 C.F.R. § 1.42. Appellant
identifies C Conjunction AB as the real party in interest. Appeal Br. 2.
2 Claims 1–19 and 37–40 are cancelled. See Final Act. 2.
Appeal 2020-002024
Application 15/559,279

2
CLAIMED SUBJECT MATTER
Claims 20, 24, 28, and 41 are independent. Claim 20 is reproduced
below.
20. A method for providing context based commercial
information, comprising:
establishing a voice communication session between a
first party using a mobile communication device and at least
one other party using a remote communication device via a
communications network;
receiving information associated with the voice
communication session at a remote server, said information
comprising at least identification data of the parties
participating in the voice communication session and audio data
associated with the communication session;
storing said received information at a remote server in a
profile associated with at least one of said parties, wherein said
profile is updated at each new voice communication session;
analyzing said stored information in said profile;
generating, based on said analyzed information,
customized commercial information; and
sending said generated customized commercial
information to the mobile communication device.

REJECTIONS
Claims 20, 22, 24, 26, 28–31, 34, and 36 are rejected under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103 as unpatentable over Atsmon (US 2010/0063880 A1, pub. Mar. 11,
2010) and Forbes (US 2009/0006193 A1, pub. Jan. 1, 2009).
Claims 21 and 25 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as unpatentable
over Atsmon, Forbes, and Xu (US 2011/0270747 A1, pub. Nov. 3, 2011).
Claims 23 and 27 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as unpatentable
over Atsmon, Forbes, Xu, and Dixon (US 2016/0027055 A1, pub. Jan. 28,
2016).
Appeal 2020-002024
Application 15/559,279

3
Claims 32 and 33 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as unpatentable
over Atsmon, Forbes, and Booth (US 2016/0227361 A1, pub. Aug. 4, 2016).
Claim 35 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as unpatentable over
Atsmon, Forbes, and Kuramura (US 2014/0244630 A1, pub. Aug. 28, 2014).
Claim 41 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as unpatentable over
Atsmon and Park (US 2008/0181201 A1, pub. July 31, 2008).
ANALYSIS
Claims 20, 22, 24, 26, 28–31, 34, and 36
Rejected over Atsmon and Forbes
Appellant argues the claims as a group. See Appeal Br. 9–13. We
select claim 20 as representative. See 37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(1)(iv).
Regarding claim 20, the Examiner cites Atsmon to teach a method of
establishing a voice communication session between parties via a network
and receiving information associated with the session including
identification data of the parties and audio data of the voice communication
session, then storing the received information (identification and audio
information and user attributes) at a remote server (registry or recognition
unit) where the profile is updated at each voice communication session and
analyzed to generate and send customized commercial information to a
mobile device. Final Act. 4–5. The Examiner finds that Forbes records and
analyzes voice communications between parties and delivers targeted
advertising based on the voice communications. Id. at 5. The Examiner
determines it would have been obvious to a skilled artisan to modify Atsmon
to include the analyzing features taught by Forbes to provide targeted
advertisement based on the content of voice communications to improve the
user experience, maximize profits, and optimize advertisement revenues. Id.
Appeal 2020-002024
Application 15/559,279

4
Appellant argues that Atsmon and Forbes present advertisements to
users during a communication session but they do not store information at a
remoter server in a profile for at least one of the parties, where the profile is
updated at each new voice communication session and analyzed to generate
commercial information. Appeal Br. 9–10. Appellant asserts that paragraph
80 of Atsmon discloses a word pool rather than a profile that stores received
information, and paragraph 87 uses voice attributes to identify persons but
does not store received information in a profile of a party. Id. at 10.
Appellant argues that the claimed method produces more accurate,
customized commercial information and more efficient communication in
terms of actual data volume and content by accumulating information over
time and updating a communicating party’s profile over time to reuse and
refine accuracy and efficiency as compared to Atsmon’s system. Id. at 11.
Appellant asserts that Atsmon and Forbes analyze information only for each
communication session and convey information based on that session so that
there is no need for a stored profile. Id. at 12. We are not persuaded.
Atsmon’s system 100 creates user profiles by uploading user names,
speech samples, and speech attributes to central registry 117. Atsmon ¶ 84.
Recognition unit 108 uses this stored profile to perform speaker recognition
by comparing audio signals of a conversation to the library (profile) of user
attributes. Id. ¶¶ 83, 87. Recognition unit 108 displays the names of persons
speaking in a session with other information associated with a user’s profile,
e.g., an image, portrait, personal avatar, alias, online profile, or web persona.
Id. ¶ 87. This profile information is collected at enrollment, during previous
speech sessions, and continuously during speech recognition/communication
sessions, and profile data is saved for use in future calls. Id. ¶¶ 84, 87–91.
Appeal 2020-002024
Application 15/559,279

5
These teachings support the Examiner’s findings that Atsmon collects
identification data of parties to a voice communication session and updates
stored user profiles with new information collected during communication
sessions as claimed. Final Act. 4; Ans. 4–5. Atsmon uses the stored profile
information to identify parties during an audio communication sessions and
saves this profile information for use in identifying speakers in future calls.
Atsmon ¶¶ 84, 87–91. Atsmon updates user profiles with words, phrases,
and other information collected during communication sessions to improve
the user profile and produce better results in future sessions. Id. ¶¶ 105, 114.
The information can augment or expand databases of system 100. Id. ¶ 105.
The system can channel collected and recorded information of a user to the
user and to possible beneficiaries for any purpose. Id. The information can
be used to refine or improve the system for current/future sessions and to
recalculate a semantic map, logic model, or algorithm in real-time. Id.
The additional information is used to update user profiles to match
content to a user and to determine the most appropriate result to output in
current or future sessions based on user characteristics or cues collected in
conversations. Id. ¶¶ 114, 115. The system thus can assess the best match
of content or most appropriate information to provide to a user. Id. Data
collected during communication sessions is used to match content that is
displayed to a user. Id. ¶¶ 123–25. Selected content may be provided to a
user during a conversation or later. Id. ¶ 125. A user may choose when and
how selected information is presented. Id. The system can be used on a
cellular phone to provide content responsive to conversations on a cellular
phone by processing audio signals to create content displayed on the cellular
phone. Id. ¶¶ 117, 126–28.
Appeal 2020-002024
Application 15/559,279

6
Content matching is based on the user profiles that are created from
information obtained during a user’s various communication sessions. See
id. ¶¶ 83–91, 93, 105, 113–15, 123–26. Atsmon collects information during
voice communication sessions of users of mobile devices in a telephone call,
and the information includes user identification data and audio data. See id.
¶¶ 72–76, 84, 87, 88, 91, 93, 105, 114, 123–27. The information is stored in
a user profile of at least one of the parties to the session and is used to update
the user’s profile for future sessions to improve matching and presentation of
customized content to a user including advertisements or other commercial
information, e.g., based on words or terms used in the conversations. See id.
¶¶ 88, 91, 105, 106, 113–15, 125–28.
Accordingly, we sustain the rejection of claim 20 and claims 22, 24,
26, 28–31, 34, and 36, which fall with claim 20.
Rejections of Dependent Claims 21, 23, 25, 27, 32, 33
The Examiner rejects dependent claims 21, 23, 25, 27, 32, and 33 over
various combinations of Atsmon and Forbes with Xu, Dixon, and/or Booth.
See Final Act. 6–10. Appellant does not traverse the rejections. See Appeal
Br. 9–14. Thus, we summarily sustain all of these rejections. See 37 C.F.R.
§ 41.37(c)(1)(iv).
Claim 35
Rejected over Atsmon, Forbes, and Kuramura
Claim 35 depends from claim 28 and recites the software application
further comprising “means for creating a call page associated with a profile
for display during a voice communication session.” Appeal Br. Claims App.
7. The Specification describes a call page as profile information such as a
picture, personal information, or user selected information. Spec. 18:11–17.
Appeal 2020-002024
Application 15/559,279

7
The Examiner finds that Atsmon displays a special information page
during a call session to correlate words spoken during a conversation with
content or displays of information relevant to the content of a conversation.
Final Act. 11; Ans. 6. The Examiner also finds that Kuramura teaches this
feature as a user’s profile page presented on initiation of a communication
session to provide user profile or contact-related information and interaction
options for the user and contact during a voice call. Final Act. 11; Ans. 6.
Appellant argues that the profile side of Kuramura is different from
the claimed call page because it is used only by a party to present certain
information whereas “the presently claimed call page is used for interaction
between the parties” such as enabling files to be shared. Appeal Br. 13.
This argument is not persuasive because it is not commensurate with
the scope of claim 35, which merely requires a “means for creating a call
page associated with a profile for display during a voice communication
session” without any requirement that the call page facilitate any interaction
between the parties as Appellant contends. Furthermore, Atsmon displays a
call page during a voice communication as a user profile that may include an
image, portrait, personal avatar, alias, online profile and/or web persona of a
user. Atsmon ¶ 87. This teaching corresponds to the claimed call page and
the description of the call page in the Specification of a call page as profile
information such as a picture, current personal information or other user
selectable information. Spec. 18:11–17. We also agree with the Examiner
that Kuramura displays a call page with a party’s profile picture and contact-
related information that allows a party to the call to interact with a caller by
answering, messaging, or emailing the caller. Ans. 6 (citing Kuramura ¶ 57,
Figs. 3–5). Accordingly, we sustain the rejection of claim 35.
Appeal 2020-002024
Application 15/559,279

8
Claim 41
Rejected over Atsmon and Park
Independent claim 41 recites a method for providing context based
commercial information with similar steps to those recited in claim 20 and
by “providing a call page associated with the profile for display during a
voice communication session, the call page enabling content sharing during
the voice communication session.” Appeal Br. Claims App. 8–9. The
Examiner relies on Atsmon to teach features of claim 41 that are similar to
those recited in claim 20 and Park to teach the claimed call page. Final Act.
12–13. Appellant argues that Kuramura is significantly different from the
claimed call page because it is used to present information whereas the
claimed call page is used for interaction between parties. See id. at 12–13.
This argument is not persuasive because the Examiner relies on Park,
and not Kuramura, to teach the claimed call page. Final Act. 12–13; Ans. 6–
7. Appellant’s arguments do not address the Examiner’s findings that Park
teaches a call page, as claimed, that enables content sharing during a voice
communication session and therefore do not apprise us of Examiner error in
this regard. We agree with the Examiner that Park teaches a content sharing
system that also allows callers to share content by transmitting a call page
(message page) that can be used to establish a data session for content
sharing between the callers to the conversation. Park ¶¶ 37, 50, 54, 55, Figs.
1, 2. Park teaches that callers can share general documents, web pages, web
catalogs, chat messages, image files, motion pictures, and media files during
a conversation. Id. ¶ 50.
Thus, we sustain the rejection of claim 41.

Appeal 2020-002024
Application 15/559,279

9
CONCLUSION
In summary:
Claims
Rejected
35 U.S.C.
§  
Reference(s)/
Basis
Affirmed Reversed
20, 22, 24,
26, 28–31,
34, 36
103 Atsmon,
Forbes
20, 22, 24,
26, 28–31,
34, 36

21, 25 103 Atsmon,
Forbes, Xu
21, 25
23, 27 103 Atsmon,
Forbes, Xu,
Dixon
23, 27
32, 33 103 Atsmon,
Forbes, Booth
32, 33
35 103 Atsmon,
Forbes,
Kuramura
35
41 103 Atsmon, Park 41
Overall
Outcome
20–36, 41
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