Chad Benson et al.

Patent Trials and Appeals Board

May 6, 2020

13944459 - (D) (P.T.A.B. May. 6, 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.
13/944,459 07/17/2013 Chad Benson INNOVATION-P004 9882
133690 7590 05/06/2020
Goodhue, Coleman & Owens, P.C.
12951 University Ave
Suite 201
Clive, IA 50325
EXAMINER
FIBBI, CHRISTOPHER J
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2174
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
05/06/2020 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):
USPTO@dockettrak.com
docketing@goodhue.com
eofficeaction@appcoll.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte CHAD BENSON and MIKE FROST
Appeal 2018-005374
Application 13/944,459
Technology Center 2100
Before JOHN A. JEFFERY, BRYAN F. MOORE, and
LINZY T. McCARTNEY, Administrative Patent Judges.
McCARTNEY, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
Appellant1 seeks review under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) of the Examiner’s
final rejection of claims 1, 4–9, 12–21, 23, and 24. We have jurisdiction
under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We affirm.

1 Appellant identifies the real party in interest as Innovation Software, LLC.
Appeal Brief 4, filed November 20, 2017 (Appeal Br.).
Appeal 2018-005374
Application 13/944,459

2
BACKGROUND
This patent application concerns “a manual intervention process to
allow users to manually perform clicking operations for records including
phone numbers before the phone numbers are communicated to a dialing
device.” Specification 1:10–12, filed July 17, 2013. Claim 1 illustrates the
claimed subject matter:
1. A method for manual intervention in a dialing process, the
method comprising:
(a) maintaining a list of records containing phone numbers
in a database stored on a non-transitory computer readable
storage medium;
(b) providing a user interface in operative communication
with the database, wherein the user interface is configured to (1)
present a first user with a target for clicking, (2) provide for
receiving multiple clicks on the target, and (3) queue each of the
associated individual records for dialing, wherein the first user
has no access rights to the phone numbers within the associated
individual records;
(c) receiving at a computer and from the first user using
the user interface, a click on the target for each of a plurality of
individual records within the list of records in the database stored
on the non-transitory computer readable storage medium;
(d) storing within the database and on the non-transitory
computer readable storage medium a record of the click for each
of the plurality of individual records, an identify [sic] of the first
user performing the click for each of the plurality of individual
records, and an association between the click and a
corresponding record for each of the plurality of records;
(e) for each click electronically communicating the
corresponding phone number of one of the records within the one
or more lists to a dialing device for dialing the phone number;
and
(f) maintaining a click ahead count defining a number of
manual clicks on the target for which each of the associated
Appeal 2018-005374
Application 13/944,459

3
individual records has been queued for dialing but not yet dialed,
wherein the click ahead count is set by a second user and is
limited to a maximum clicks ahead constraint wherein the
maximum clicks ahead constraint is a static value defining a
maximum number of clicks for which a record has been queued
but for which associated phone numbers have not been dialed.
Appeal Br. 55–56.
REJECTION
Claims 35 U.S.C. § Reference(s)/Basis
1, 4–9, 12–21, 23,
24 103(a)
Gould,2 LaBoyteaux,3 Summe,4
Casalaina5
DISCUSSION
We have reviewed the Examiner’s rejection and Appellant’s
arguments, and Appellant has not persuaded us that the Examiner erred. As
consistent with the discussion below, we adopt the Examiner’s reasoning,
findings, and conclusions on pages 3–19 of the Final Office Action mailed
May 17, 2017 (Final Act.), and pages 2–11 of the Examiner’s Answer
mailed March 22, 2018 (Ans.). We address Appellant’s arguments below.
Claims 1, 15, and 23
Step (d)
Claim 1 recites “(d) storing within the database and on the non-
transitory computer readable storage medium a record of the click for each
of the plurality of individual records, an identify [sic] of the first user
performing the click for each of the plurality of individual records, and an

2 Gould (US 2008/0082515 A1; April 3, 2008).
3 LaBoyteaux et al. (US 2013/0202101 A1; August 8, 2013).
4 Summe et al. (US 7,386,102 B2; June 10, 2008).
5 Casalaina et al. (US 2011/0225232 A1; September 15, 2011).
Appeal 2018-005374
Application 13/944,459

4
association between the click and a corresponding record for each of the
plurality of records.” Appeal Br. 55.
For this step, Appellant argues “one of ordinary skill in the art would
not have been led to combine the teachings of LaBoyteaux with the
teachings of Gould” for the reason provided by the Examiner because the
cited references does not “teach or suggest storing an association between a
click provided by a first user and the corresponding record in the same
database as the records in which the corresponding records are
maintained.” Reply Brief 20–30, filed April 30, 2018 (Reply Br.) (emphasis
added); see also Appeal Br. 17–28. Appellant contends that claim 1 requires
that step (d) store its recited association in the same database in which step
(a) stores its recited list of records. See Reply Br. 21. According to
Appellant, neither Gould nor LaBoyteaux teaches or suggests storing this
information together. See Reply Br. 21–30.
We find this argument unpersuasive. The Examiner found that
LaBoyteaux teaches storing the recited list of records in a database as
required by step (a), see Final Act. 5–6, and that Gould teaches storing the
recited association in a database as required by step (d), see Final Act. 4–5.
The Examiner concluded that it would have been obvious to combine these
teachings to arrive at the subject matter recited in these steps. See Final Act.
3–7; Ans. 5–6. Appellant’s argument that LaBoyteaux and Gould each
individually do not teach or suggest the subject matter recited in steps (a)
and (d) does not persuade us that the Examiner erred. “[O]ne cannot show
non-obviousness by attacking references individually where, as here, the
rejections are based on combinations of references.” See In re Keller, 642
F.2d 413, 426 (CCPA 1981).
Appeal 2018-005374
Application 13/944,459

5

Step (e)
Claim 1 recites “(e) for each click electronically communicating the
corresponding phone number of one of the records within the one or more
lists to a dialing device for dialing the phone number.” Appeal Br. 55.
Appellant argues that Gould does not teach or suggest this step. Appeal Br.
13–15; Reply Br. 13–17. Appellant argues in relevant part that claim 1
requires “for each click electronically communicating the corresponding
phone number of one of the records within the one or more lists to a dialing
device for dialing the phone number as claimed wherein after being
electronically communicated to the dialing device the record may be queued
for dialing.” Reply Br. 17 (emphasis added). According to Appellant,
instead of teaching this communicating and queuing process, Gould
“describes a system where upon clicking the dialing control, the system dials
the number.” Reply Br. 17.
We find these arguments unpersuasive. Step (e) does not recite
“wherein after being electronically communicated to the dialing device the
record may be queued for dialing.” Appeal Br. 55. Instead, step (e) recites
that “for each click electronically communicating the corresponding phone
number of one of the records within the one or more lists to a dialing device
for dialing the phone number.” Appeal Br. 55. As found by the Examiner,
see, e.g., Ans. 2–3, Gould teaches this step. For example, Gould discloses
code “configured to cause, at least in part, lead phone numbers
corresponding to the user selection to be provided to an autodialer associated
with the user,” Gould ¶ 9, and depicts an “Easy Dial” user interface that
includes a button labeled “Dial” and instructions such as “To Begin, Click
Appeal 2018-005374
Application 13/944,459

6
Dial,” Gould Fig. 9D; see also Gould ¶ 28 (explaining that the written
description “refers to ‘clicking on’ a link or button or pressing a key in order
to provide a command, make a selection, or to provide data”). Similar
disclosures appear throughout Gould. See, e.g., Gould ¶¶ 60 (“In this
example, if the user activates the dial name control, and the system, via the
autodialer, automatically dials the lead, optionally without disclosure of the
lead’s phone number to the user.”), 74 (“At state 116, the phone number for
the selected lead is dialed by a dialer, optionally without displaying the
phone number to the user. . . . [T]he system may retrieve the phone number
from the database, transmit the lead over a network, such as the Internet, to
which the dialer is connected, and the dialer dials the lead’s phone
number.”), 138 (disclosing a user interface that displays a “dial control . . .
which, if activated causes the prospect phone number to be dialed”), Fig. 1–
2, item 116 (“Phone number is sent concealed over web to software which
dials lead for user”).
If Appellant argues that Gould does not teach or suggest the queue
referenced in step (f), we also find this argument unpersuasive. The
Examiner determined that this step would have been obvious given the
combined teachings of Summe, Gould, and LaBoyteaux, not Gould alone.
See, e.g., Final Act. 3–9; Ans. 3–5. Appellant’s argument that Gould does
not teach this queue therefore does not persuade us that the Examiner erred.
See Keller, 642 F.2d at 426 (“[O]ne cannot show non-obviousness by
attacking references individually where, as here, the rejections are based on
combinations of references.”).
Appeal 2018-005374
Application 13/944,459

7
Step (f)
Claim 1 recites “(f) maintaining a click ahead count defining a
number of manual clicks on the target for which each of the associated
individual records has been queued for dialing but not yet dialed, wherein
the click ahead count is set by a second user and is limited to a maximum
clicks ahead constraint wherein the maximum clicks ahead constraint is a
static value defining a maximum number of clicks for which a record has
been queued but for which associated phone numbers have not been dialed.”
Appeal Br. 55–56.
Appellant argues that Summe does not teach or suggest this step. See
Appeal Br. 15–17; Reply Br. 18–19. Appellant asserts that Summe teaches
“controlling the maximum number of outgoing calls and the maximum
number of simultaneous calls transferred to human operators.” Reply Br. 19
(emphasis omitted). Appellant contends that “[t]he claimed click ahead
count and the claimed maximum clicks ahead constraint are neither the
maximum outgoing telephone calls allowed nor the maximum simultaneous
calls transferred to human operators.” Reply Br. 19. According to Appellant,
“the ‘click ahead count’ and the ‘maximum clicks ahead constraint’ relate to
maintaining records for the manual interventions as opposed to counts or
constraints of the dialer.” Reply Br. 19.
We find these arguments unpersuasive. The Examiner explained that
in claim 1 “a click for a record signifies that a call will be placed to that
number.” Ans. 4. The Examiner determined that the combination of Gould
and LaBoyteaux suggests a “click-to-dial queued autodialer system” that
includes an interface configured to present a target for clicking and queue
each of the associated individual records for dialing. See Ans. 4; see also
Appeal 2018-005374
Application 13/944,459

8
Final Act. 3–7. The Examiner found that Summe teaches setting a maximum
number of outgoing calls and a maximum number of simultaneous calls
transferred to human operators to control the number of outgoing and
simultaneous calls. See Ans. 4. The Examiner concluded that it would have
been obvious to modify the Gould-LaBoyteaux system with the teachings of
Summe to arrive at step (f) because doing so would “provide[] the ability to
wait to automatically make calls until the number is below a maximum
threshold as to not overbear the human users.” Ans. 4.
Appellant’s argument against Summe alone has not persuaded us that
the Examiner erred. See Keller, 642 F.2d at 426 (“[O]ne cannot show non-
obviousness by attacking references individually where, as here, the
rejections are based on combinations of references.”). As noted by the
Examiner, Ans. 4–5, “[a] person of ordinary skill is also a person of ordinary
creativity, not an automaton,” and the Examiner was free to “take account of
the inferences and creative steps that a person of ordinary skill in the art
would employ,” KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 421, 418
(2007). Taking those inferences and creative steps into account, we agree
with the Examiner that step (f) would have been obvious given the combined
teachings of the cited art.
Conclusion
For at least the above reasons, we find Appellant’s arguments for
claim 1 unpersuasive. We thus sustain the Examiner’s rejection of claim 1
under § 103(a). Appellant raises substantially similar arguments for
corresponding steps in independent claims 15 and 23. We also find these
arguments unpersuasive for at least the reasons discussed above and
therefore sustain the Examiner’s rejection of these claims under § 103(a).
Appeal 2018-005374
Application 13/944,459

9
Claim 12
Claim 12 recites “[t]he method of claim 1 further comprising
providing a cloud-based service and providing a manual clicker application
to the user through a cloud-based server wherein the cloud-based service
provides for performing steps (a)-(f).” Appeal Br. 57. Appellant contends
that the Examiner has not shown that Gould teaches or suggests this step.
See Appeal Br. 28–30; Reply Br. 31–33. Appellant contends that because the
Examiner conceded that Gould “does not teach part (a), part (f), and a
portion of part (b) of claim 1,” “Gould cannot possibly teach a cloud-based
service that provides for performing steps (a)-(f).” Appeal Br. 30.
Appellant has not persuaded us that the Examiner erred. The
Examiner concluded that the combined teachings of Gould, LaBoyteaux,
Summe, and Casalaina suggests steps (a)–(f) recited in claim 1. See Final
Act. 3–11. The Examiner determined that Gould teaches providing cloud-
based services and a cloud-based environment. See, e.g., Ans. 7. The
Examiner concluded that it would have been obvious to combine the
teachings of Gould, LaBoyteaux, Summe, and Casalaina for steps (a)–(f) of
claim 1 with Gould’s teachings about cloud-based services and a cloud-
based environment to arrive at the subject matter recited in claim 12. See,
e.g., Ans. 7–8. Appellant’s argument that Gould alone does not teach parts
of steps (a)–(f) has not persuaded us that the Examiner erred. See Keller, 642
F.2d at 426 (“[O]ne cannot show non-obviousness by attacking references
individually where, as here, the rejections are based on combinations of
references.”).
Appeal 2018-005374
Application 13/944,459

10
Claim 13
Claim 13 recites “[t]he method of claim 1 further comprising
displaying to the first user through the user interface a number of clicks
performed by the first user within the list of records at the same time as
presenting the first user with the target for clicking.” Appeal Br. 57.
Appellant contends that Summe does not teach or suggest this limitation. See
Appeal Br. 30–34; Reply Br. 33–36. Appellant argues that the clicks recited
in claim 13 refer to the clicks recited in steps (c)–(e) in claim 1. See Appeal
Br. 31. Appellant contends that Summe does not teach or suggest
“displaying to the first user through the user interface a number of clicks
performed by the first user within the scope of the term click as recited” in
claim 13. Appeal Br. 31–32.
We find these arguments unpersuasive. The Examiner found that
Gould teaches clicks recited in limitations (c)–(e) recited in claim 1, the
clicks representing phone records communicated to a dialing device for
dialing. See Final Act. 4–5. The Examiner found that Summe teaches a user
interface that simultaneously displays a clickable target (for example, restart
call button 93), call statistics such as calls successfully completed and calls
that were unsuccessful (that is, “no answer/busy/bad number calls”), and a
call history. See Final Act. 14. The Examiner concluded the subject matter
recited in claim 13 would have been obvious given the combination of
Gould’s and Summe’s teachings. See Final Act. 14; Ans. 8–9. Appellant’s
arguments against Summe alone have not persuaded us that the Examiner
erred. See Keller, 642 F.2d at 426 (“[O]ne cannot show non-obviousness by
attacking references individually where, as here, the rejections are based on
combinations of references.”).
Appeal 2018-005374
Application 13/944,459

11
CONCLUSION
We have considered Appellant’s remaining arguments and find them
unpersuasive. For at least the above reasons, we sustain the Examiner’s
rejection of claims 1, 12, 13, 15, and 23 under § 103(a). Because Appellant
does not present separate, persuasive arguments for claims 4–9, 14, 16–21,
and 24, we also sustain the Examiner’s rejection of these claims under
§ 103(a). The following table summarizes our decision for claims 1, 4–9,
12–21, 23, and 24, the claims before us on appeal:

Claims
Rejected
35 U.S.C. § Reference(s)/Basis Affirmed Reversed
1, 4–9, 12–
21, 23, 24 103(a)
Gould, LaBoyteaux,
Summe, Casalaina
1, 4–9, 12–
21, 23, 24

No 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