Dell Products L.P.

Patent Trials and Appeals Board

Jan 1, 2021

2019003907 (P.T.A.B. Jan. 1, 2021)

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.
14/588,589 01/02/2015 Deepak Ravishankar DC-103592.01 2845
160816 7590 01/01/2021
Terrile, Cannatti & Chambers, LLP - Dell
P.O. Box 203518
Austin, TX 78720
EXAMINER
SPIELER, WILLIAM
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2159
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
01/01/2021 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
tmunoz@tcciplaw.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
____________

BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
____________

Ex parte DEEPAK RAVISHANKAR, SHARMAD S. NAIK,
and MAINAK ROY

Appeal 2019-003907
Application 14/588,589
Technology Center 2100

Before CARL W. WHITEHEAD JR., DAVID M. KOHUT, and
IRVIN E. BRANCH, Administrative Patent Judges.

BRANCH, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL
Pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 134(a), Appellant1 appeals from the
Examiner’s decision to reject claims 1, 2, 4–8, 10–14, and 16–18. We have
jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We AFFIRM.

1 We use “Appellant” to reference the applicant as defined in
37 C.F.R. § 1.42. Appellant identifies the real party in interest as
“Dell Products L.P.” Appeal Br. 1.
Appeal 2019-003907
Application 14/588,589

2
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Appellant’s Invention
Appellant’s invention is directed to the following problem.
[O]nce a customer query is detected, it is often time consuming
to first identify, and then engage, the most knowledgeable
resource, such as a subject matter expert (SME)2, to respond to
the query. As a result, it is not uncommon for user queries to
go unattended in a social media environment for lengthy
periods of time.
Spec. ¶ 5. The invention addresses the problem in the following manner.
In these embodiments, data associated with the unattended user
query is retrieved from the social media environment and then
processed to assign the unattended user query [(UUQ)]3 to a
predetermined category. Once the UUQ has been categorized,
it is provided to a resource, such as a SME, associated with the
query. In response, an answer to the previously UUQ is
received from the resource, which is then provided to the social
media environment that was the source of the UUQ.
Id. ¶ 6. Claim 1, reproduced below, is illustrative of argued subject matter.
1. A computer-implementable method for improved
management of unattended user queries within an UUQ
architecture, the UUQ architecture comprising an UUQ
management system executing on a hardware processor of an
information handling system, a social media environment, a
user device, and a SME system, the UUQ management system,
the social media environment, the user device and the SME
system exchanging information via a network, comprising:
detecting an UUQ in the social media environment;

2 We have replaced, herein, all other quoted instances of “subject matter
expert” with “SME.”
3 We have also replaced, herein, all other quoted instances of “unattended
user query” and “unattended query” with “UUQ.”
Appeal 2019-003907
Application 14/588,589

3
retrieving data associated with the UUQ from the social
media environment;
processing the retrieved data to assign the UUQ to a
category, the processing the retrieved data to assign the
UUQ to a category being performed by an UUQ
categorization module, the UUQ categorization module
automatically assigning the UUQ to a category, the
category being assigned from a set of categories
comprising a social media environment, a market
segment, a line of business (LOB), a product line, an
individual product, a use of a product, a problem
associated with a product, a provided service, a class of
user and a topic of user interest, the UUQ management
system comprising the UUQ categorization module;
providing the UUQ to a resource associated with the
category, the resource comprising the SME system, the
UUQ being assigned to a particular SME system
according to the category assigned to the UUQ, the
particular SME system being selected from a set of SME
systems comprising a social media environment SME
system, a market segment SME system, a line of business
(LOB) SME system, a product line SME system, an
individual product SME system, a use of a product SME
system, a problem associated with a product SME
system, a provided service SME system, a class of user
SME system and a topic of user interest SME system;
receiving an answer to the UUQ from the resource via
the SME system; and
providing the answer to the social media environment
that was the source of the UUQ.
Appeal Br.12–13, Claims App.
Appeal 2019-003907
Application 14/588,589

4
Rejections4
Claims 1, 2, 4–8, 10–14, and 16–18 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C.
§ 112(a) as failing to comply with the written description requirement. Final
Act. 2–3.
Claims 1, 2, 4–8, 10–14, and 16–18 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103 as being unpatentable over Marks (US 2003/0163356 A1; Aug. 28,
2003), Bagchi (US 2012/0084112 A1; Apr. 5, 2012), Sayko
(US 2014/0126708 A1; May 8, 2014), and Krishenbaum (US 7,593,904 B1;
Sept. 22, 2009). Final Act. 7–22.
WRITTEN DESCRIPTION
We are unpersuaded of error in the 35 U.S.C. § 112(a) rejection. We
accordingly sustain the rejection.
The Examiner rejects all claims under 35 U.S.C. § 112(a) because the
independent claims (1, 7, and 13) recite but, according to the Examiner, lack
a written description for assigning UUQs to SME systems of the following
categories:5 social media environment, market segment, line of business
(LOB), product line, individual product, use of a product, problem
associated with a product, provided service, class of user, and topic of user
interest. Final Act. 2–3.
Appellant contends the Specification conveys SME systems of the
above categories by disclosing that UUQs are: (1) assigned to the above
categories; and, (2) accordant thereto, assigned to SME systems.
Appeal Br. 5; Reply Br. 2–3. That is, Appellant contends the combination of

4 The Examiner has withdrawn a rejection of claims 1, 2, 4–8, 10–14, and
16–18 under 35 U.S.C. § 101. Ans. 3.
5 Herein referenced as “the above categories.”
Appeal 2019-003907
Application 14/588,589

5
these assignments (1) and (2) describes SME systems of the above
categories (i.e., not merely UUQs of the above categories). Id. We are
unpersuaded for the following reasons.
To provide a written description of a claimed invention, the
Specification must “convey with reasonable clarity[,] to those skilled in the
art that, . . . [the inventor] was in possession of the [claimed] invention.”
Vas-Cath, Inc. v. Mahurkar, 935 F.2d 1555, 1563–64 (Fed. Cir. 1991). “The
applicant does not have to utilize any particular form of disclosure to
describe the subject matter claimed.” In re Alton, 76 F.3d 1168, 1172 (Fed.
Cir. 1996). However, “the written description analysis considers the bounds
of the specification itself [and] . . . prevents patentees from claiming
more[.]” Trading Techs. Int’l, Inc. v. Open E Cry, LLC, 728 F.3d 1309,
1319 (Fed. Cir. 2013) (quotation marks and corresponding citation omitted).
In other words, “the question . . . is whether a skilled artisan would
recognize . . . the [at-issue element] might be claimed.” In re Owens,
710 F.3d 1362, 1368 (Fed. Cir. 2013). Thus, “[s]uch description need not
recite the claimed invention in haec verba but must do more than merely
disclose that which would render the claimed invention obvious.”
ICU Med., Inc. v. Alaris Med. Sys., Inc., 558 F.3d 1368, 1377
(Fed. Cir. 2009).
We find Appellant’s Specification does not convey that the inventors
might claim SME systems of the above categories. The Specification
conveys assigning of UUQs to the above categories and, accordant thereto,
assigning of those categorized UUQs to SME systems. See e.g., Spec. ¶¶
27–28; see also supra 4 (assignments (1) and (2) described by Appellant’s
contentions). At best, it would be obvious in view thereof—that is,
Appeal 2019-003907
Application 14/588,589

6
predictable in view of the Specification—to assign the UUQs to SME
systems by matching any envisaged mutual categories. However, Appellant
does not provide sufficient evidence that the inventors or ordinarily skilled
artisans regarded the invention’s UUQs and SME systems as having mutual
categories, much less regarded them as sharing the above categories. See
e.g., Reply Br. 3 (merely alleging “[t]hose of ordinary skill in the art would
understand [the] disclosure at least implies the presence of [such] SME
systems . . . , especially in view of the maturity and predictability of the
subject art”).
We add that the Specification conveys an intent to not claim a means
of assigning categorized UUQs to SME systems (e.g., by matching mutual
categories, as is implicitly claimed), stating:
The interactive interface module 206 is then implemented to
determine which resource, such as a SME, will be responsible
for responding to each of the previously-identified UUQs. . . .
[T]he resource is assigned according to the category
associated with each UUQ. The method by which a resource is
selected to respond to each UUQ is a matter of design choice.
Spec. ¶ 29 (emphasis added). By stating the means of “the [SME] resource
[being] assigned according to the category [of] each UUQ” is a “matter of
design choice” (id.), the above conveys disinterest in obtaining patent
protection for a means of assigning categorized UUQs to SME systems.
OBVIOUSNESS
We are unpersuaded of error in the 35 U.S.C. § 103 rejection of all
claims over Marks, Bagchi, Sayko, and Krishenbaum. We accordingly
sustain the rejection.
Appeal 2019-003907
Application 14/588,589

7
Appellant contends the Examiner unreasonably relies on Sayko and
Krishenbaum for the claimed assigning of a UUQ to a category. Appeal
Br. 10–11. As to Sayko, Appellant contends:
[N]owhere within the cited portion of Sayko (nor anywhere else
in Sayko) is there any disclosure or suggestion of processing
the retrieved data to assign the UUQ to a category, much less
of the UUQ categorization module automatically assigning the
UUQ to a category[.]
Id. at 10 (original emphasis). As to Sayko and Krishenbaum, Appellant
contends:
[N]owhere within Sayko and Krishenbaum is there any
disclosure or suggestion of the UUQ management system
comprising the UUQ categorization module, the category being
assigned from a set of categories via the UUQ module[.]
Unlike any of the cited references, the categories of the present
application apply not only to whether a question is answerable,
but also to particular business categories to which [a] UUQ may
be assigned. Such categories become especially important in
organizations having different business categories to which
UUQs should be directed.
Id. at 10–11. We are unpersuaded for the following reasons.
Appellant is addressing the claimed “UUQ categorization module
automatically assigning the UUQ to a category . . . from a set . . .
comprising” the above categories (independent claims 1, 7, and 13). The
Final Action clearly explains that the limitation is read on the applied prior
art as follows. Marks teaches a computer interface for assigning UUQs to
some of the above categories (social media environment and topic of user
interest). Final Act. 10. Sayko teaches a computer interface for assigning
UUQs to some of the above categories (LOB, a product line, a use of a
product, a problem associated with a product, a provided service, and a class
Appeal 2019-003907
Application 14/588,589

8
of user). Id. at 12–13. Krishenbaum teaches a computer interface for
assigning UUQs to some of the above categories (market segment). Id. at
12–13. Bagchi teaches a means of automatically assigning UUQs to
categories. Id. at 16 (“A Q-Classifier (Question Classifier) module . . . may
classify or categorize a question into different classifications or groups.”).
We find the Examiner has, in response to identical prior arguments,
explained that Appellant fails to address the rejection’s above reliance on the
prior art. In response to pre-Final Action arguments that Sayko does not
teach “automatically assigning” UUQs to categories (Appellant’s “Response
to Non-Final Office Action” (March 6, 2018) 13), the Examiner stated “the
arguments do not apply to any of the references being used in the current
rejection[;] the limitation in question is rejected with the Bagchi reference
[and] not Sayko.” Final Act. 28. In response to pre-Final Action arguments
that Sayko and Krishenbaum do not teach or suggest the “UUQ
categorization module” for assigning UUQs to categories (Response to Non-
Final 13–14), the Examiner stated Appellant argues against Sayko and
Krishenbaum whereas the rejection is applying the “Bagchi . . . teach[ing of]
a Q-Classifier (question classifier) that functions substantially similar to the
recited ‘UUQ management system’.” Final Act. 29–30.
In response to identical post-Final Action arguments (Appellant’s
“Response to Final Office Action” (July 9, 2018) 13–14), the Advisory
Action similarly responds that Appellant is not addressing the rejection’s
above reliance on the prior art. Advisory Act., Cont’n Sheets. And now, in
response to identical Appeal Brief arguments (supra 6 (block quotes)), the
Answer explains how the prosecution history has repeatedly placed
Appeal 2019-003907
Application 14/588,589

9
Appellant on notice of the rejection’s above reliance on the prior art.
Ans. 8–9.
In the Reply Brief, Appellant addresses the rejection’s above reliance
on the prior art—namely by addressing Bagchi on the merits. Reply Br. 4–
5. These arguments are late without good cause and therefore waived. 37
C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(1)(iv).
We add that the arguments would be, even if timely, unpersuasive for:
(1) arguing Bagchi’s categorizing of a user query is not a “UUQ” without
addressing the rejection’s reliance on the other references (cited as teaching
UUQs); (2) arguing that none of the references automatically categorizes a
UUQ without addressing the rejection’s reliance on Bagchi (cited as
teaching an automatic categorizing of queries) and the other references
(cited as teaching categories of UUQs) in combination.
CONCLUSION
For the foregoing reasons, we affirm the Examiner’s decision to reject
claims 1, 2, 4–8, 10–14, and 16–18.
DECISION SUMMARY
In summary:
Claims
Rejected
35 U.S.C. § Reference(s)/Basis Affirmed Reversed
1, 2, 4–8,
10–14,
16–18
112(a) Written Description
1, 2, 4–8,
10–14,
16–18

1, 2, 4–8,
10–14,
16–18
103
Marks, Bagchi,
Sayko,
Krishenbaum
1, 2, 4–8,
10–14,
16–18

Overall
Outcome
1, 2, 4–8,
10–14,
16–18

Appeal 2019-003907
Application 14/588,589

10

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