Ex Parte Beck et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Jan 22, 2014

11370444 (P.T.A.B. Jan. 22, 2014)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
____________

BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
____________

Ex parte CHRISTOPHER CLEMMETT BECK,
JONATHAN MICHAEL BERKE, JOEL A. JOHNSTONE,
ROBIN MARIE MITCHELL, JAMES KARL POWERS,
MARK FRANKLIN SIDELL, and CHARLES DAZLER KNUFF
____________

Appeal 2011-008830
Application 11/370,444
Technology Center 2400
____________

Before JOSEPH A. FISCHETTI, BIBHU R. MOHANTY, and JOHN W.
MORRISON, Administrative Patent Judges.

MOHANTY, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL
Appeal 2011-008830
Application 11/370,444

2
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
The Appellants seek our review under 35 U.S.C. § 134 of the final
rejection of claims 2, 3, 5 and 6 which are all the claims pending in the
application. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).

SUMMARY OF THE DECISION
We REVERSE.

THE INVENTION
The Appellants’ claimed invention is directed to multimedia
technology (Spec. 1:29-32). Claim 2, reproduced below, is representative of
the subject matter on appeal.

2. A method for managing and routing multimedia transactions
between internal and external transaction partners in a communication
center, comprising;
(a) receiving, from an external transaction partner, a multi-
media transaction having voice data included in anyone of video mail,
IP calls, COST voice calls, and voice mails at the communication
center;
(b) preparing and storing a text version of at least a portion of
the voice data of the multi-media transaction;
(c) extracting knowledge from the stored text version of step
(b); and
(d) routing at least a notification of the received multi-media
transaction along with the stored text version to one or both of the
transaction partners based on the extracted knowledge.

Appeal 2011-008830
Application 11/370,444

3
THE REJECTIONS
The following rejection is before us for review:
Claims 2, 3, 5, and 6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
unpatentable over Sonesh (US 6,046,762, iss. Apr. 4, 2000), Baker (US
7,236,486 B2, iss. Jun. 26, 2007) and Nelson (US 6,243,713 B1, iss. Jun. 5,
2001).

FINDINGS OF FACT
We find the findings of fact in the Analysis section below are
supported at least by a preponderance of the evidence1.

ANALYSIS
The Appellants argue that the rejection of claim 2 is improper because
the prior art fails to disclose elements of claim limitation “(d)” which
requires “routing at least a notification of the received multi-media
transaction along with the stored text version to one or both of the
transaction partners based on the extracted knowledge.” (Br. 10-11).
In contrast, the Examiner has cited to the notification being shown by
Sonesh at column 3, lines 60-67, column 4, lines 28-33 and 53-55, column 6,
lines 49-56, column 7, lines 34-38, column 8, lines 1-20, column 10, lines
33-67, and column 11, lines 1-6; and the extracted knowledge being shown
by Nelson at columns 5, lines 50-67, 6, lines 15-20, 7, lines 1-10, 14, lines 4-
6, and Figures 2 and 7e. (Ans. 5-6 and 13).

1 See Ethicon, Inc. v. Quigg, 849 F.2d 1422, 1427 (Fed. Cir. 1988)
(explaining the general evidentiary standard for proceedings before the
Patent Office).
Appeal 2011-008830
Application 11/370,444

4
We agree with the Appellants. While Sonesh at the cited portions
does disclose features such as routing the calls to agents and notifying a
caller of the wait time there is no disclosure of routing the “notification of
the received multi-media transaction along with the stored text version.”
Sonesh at these portions does not specifically disclose the claimed
notification in response to the claimed extracted knowledge. Further,
Nelson at the portions cited by the Examiner fails to disclose the “extracted
knowledge” based on the stored text from the voice data. Regardless, the
rationale presented for the combination of the references in the Answer at
pages 6 and 15-16 lacks articulated reasoning with rational underpinnings
without impermissible hindsight. In KSR Int'l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S.
398 (2007) the Supreme Court at 418 noted that in an obviousness analysis
“rejections on obviousness grounds cannot be sustained by mere conclusory
statements; instead, there must be some articulated reasoning with some
rational underpinning to support the legal conclusion of obviousness.” For
these reasons the rejection of claim 2 and its dependent claims is sustained.

CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
We conclude that Appellants have shown that the Examiner erred in
rejecting claims 2, 3, 5, and 6 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over
Sonesh, Baker, and Nelson.

Appeal 2011-008830
Application 11/370,444

5
DECISION
The Examiner’s rejection of claims 2, 3, 5, and 6 is reversed.

REVERSED

mls