Ex Parte Blank et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Jun 27, 2016

13483544 (P.T.A.B. Jun. 27, 2016)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
13/483,544 05/30/2012 Guy Blank
52025 7590 06/29/2016
SAP SE c/o BUCKLEY, MASCHOFF & TALWALKAR LLC
50 LOCUST A VENUE
NEW CANAAN, CT 06840
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
ATTORNEY DOCKET NO. CONFIRMATION NO.
2012P00144US 6542
EXAMINER
SHIN, SEONG-AH A
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2659
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
06/29/2016 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):
martin@BMTPATENT.COM
szpara@bmtpatent.com
colabella@bmtpatent.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte GUY BLANK and GUY SOFFER
Appeal2015-003662
Application 13/483,544
Technology Center 2600
Before LARRY J. HUME, LINZY T. McCARTNEY, and
SCOTT B. HOWARD, Administrative Patent Judges.
McCARTNEY, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
Appellants appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from a rejection of claims
1-20. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b ).
We REVERSE.
Appeal2015-003662
Application 13/483,544
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
The present patent application concerns "systems and methods to
facilitate voice interactions between a user and a business platform." Spec.
2:4--5. Claim 1 illustrates the claimed subject matter:
1. A computer implemented method, comprising:
receiving, at user device, business enterprise information
from a remote enterprise server;
receiving, at the user device, an extensible markup
language ("XML") schema from a voice interaction server, the
XML schema representing a voice interaction between an
enterprise service and end-user voice commands which are
associated with a modeled business scenario;
automatically converting, by the user device, at least some
of the business enterprise information, based on the XML
schema, into speech output provided to a user of the user device,
the speech output navigating the user through a workflow
associated with the modeled business scenario;
receiving speech input from the user via the user device;
automatically converting the speech input; and
interacting with the remote enterprise server in accordance
with the converted speech input and the business enterprise
information.
REJECTION
Claims 1-20 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable
over Bhardwaj et al. (US 8,032,383 Bl; iss. Oct. 4, 2011) ("Bhardwaj") and
Da Palma et al. (US 8,000,969 B2; iss. Aug. 16, 2011) ("Da Palma").
2
Appeal2015-003662
Application 13/483,544
ANALYSIS
I
Appellants argue the Examiner's combination of Bhardwaj and Da
Palma as set forth in the Final Rejection and Advisory Action fails to teach
or suggest the following limitation recited in claim 1: "receiving, at the user
device, an extensible markup language ("XML") schema from a voice
interaction server, the XML schema representing a voice interaction between
an enterprise service and end-user voice commands which are associated
with a modeled business scenario." See App. Br. 5-8. Appellants argue the
Examiner's construction of "XML schema" as "a voice interaction" conflicts
with the plain and ordinary meanings of the words "schema" and
"representing" in the disputed "receiving" limitation. Id. at 6-8. According
to Appellants, the plain and ordinary meanings of "schema" and
"representing" are "a diagram, plan, or scheme" and "to stand or act in the
place of," respectively. Id. at 6. Appellants contend that under these
constructions, claim 1 requires an XML diagram, plan, or scheme that stands
in the place of the recited voice interaction, not simply a voice interaction as
found by the Examiner. See id. at 6-8.
We find Appellants' arguments persuasive. The Examiner provided
the following reasoning to support construing "XML schema" as "a voice
interaction": "Because of on lines 4--5, claim 1, 'the XML schema
representing a voice interaction between an enterprise service and end-user
voice commands' and in the specification (paragraph [0062]), the examiner
interpreted that a XML schema is a voice interaction." Advisory Act. 2.
Under this construction, the Examiner found Da Palma teaches or suggests
the disputed limitation because Da Palma discloses that "a voice interaction
3
Appeal2015-003662
Application 13/483,544
is sent from the voice server 330 or Chatbot server 320 to the
communication device 31 O" and "a voice interaction is received at a user
device from a voice interaction server." Id. (citing Da Palma 8: 12-54,
Fig. 3).
The Examiner's construction does not find adequate support in either
the cited claim language or the cited specification paragraph. The limitation
"the XML schema representing a voice interaction between an enterprise
service and end-user voice commands" does not define the XML schema as
a voice interaction; the cited language instead requires the XML schema
represent the recited voice interaction. As argued by Appellants, the plain
and ordinary meaning of "representing" is "to stand or act in the place of,"
not "to be." App. Br. 6. And nothing about the word "schema" indicates
that an "XML schema" is "a voice interaction." The evidence of record
indicates that a "schema" is simply "a diagram, plan, or scheme." Id.
Paragraph 62 of Appellants' specification does not define "XML
schema," much less define it as "a voice interaction." Paragraph 62 states in
relevant part that "[ d]esigners may be able to define a model (represented in
a specified XML schema) that represents the voice interaction between a set
of enterprise services and end-user voice commands." Blank et al.
(US2013/032546 Al; pub. Dec. 5, 2013) i-f 62. This disclosure merely
explains that an XML schema represents a model that in tum represents a
voice interaction.
Accordingly, on this limited record, we agree with Appellants that an
"XML schema" means an "XML diagram, plan, or scheme" and "XML
schema representing a voice interaction" means "an XML diagram, plan, or
scheme that stands in place of a voice interaction." We further agree with
4
Appeal2015-003662
Application 13/483,544
Appellants that under this construction Da Palma's "voice interaction" does
not teach or suggest the disputed "receiving" limitation.
II
Appellants also argue that Da Palma does not teach or suggest
"receiving, at the user device, an extensible markup language ("XML")
schema" under the Examiner's new interpretation in the Answer of
"schema" as Da Palma's "VoiceXML." See Reply Br. 2--4. Appellants
contend that although Da Palma discloses "a VoiceXML application to
control voice-based interactions," Da Palma does not teach or suggest "that
an end user device receives an XML schema from the VoiceXML
application." Id. at 3.
We find Appellants' arguments persuasive. As asserted by Appellants,
in the Answer the Examiner construed Da Palma's "VoiceXML" as the
recited "schema." Ans. 14. The Examiner found Da Palma teaches the
disputed "receiving, at the user device, an extensible markup language
("XML") schema" limitation because Da Palma discloses that "Chatbot
Server (320) is a voiceXML server that dynamically converts messages from
user device (310) to message[s] by voice server (330)." Id. at 15 (citing Da
Palma 8:45---64, Fig. 3). But this disclosure establishes that Da Palma's
voiceXML server converts user device messages. This disclosure does not
teach or suggest the user device receives VoiceXML or any other XML
schema. Moreover, although other cited portions of Da Palma disclose
transmitting voice markup, as argued by Appellants, these portions describe
transmitting the voice markup to a Chatbot Server, not a user device. See Da
Palma 4:26--46, 9:61---65; Figs. 1, 3; Reply Br. 3. We therefore agree with
5
Appeal2015-003662
Application 13/483,544
Appellants that the Examiner has not established Da Palma teaches or
suggests "receiving, at the user device, an extensible markup language
("XML") schema."
For the above reasons, on this record we do not sustain the
Examiner's rejection of independent claim 1 and independent claims 11
and 17, which recite similar "receiving, at the user device" limitations. We
also do not sustain the Examiner's rejection of dependent claims 2-10, 12-
16, and 18-20, each of which depend from either claim 1, 11, or 17.
DECISION
For the above reasons, we reverse the rejection of claims 1-20.
REVERSED
6