Ex Parte Chavez et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Nov 18, 2016

12899683 (P.T.A.B. Nov. 18, 2016)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE
12/899,683 10/07/2010
93379 7590
Setter Roche LLP
14694 Orchard Parkway
Building A, Suite 200
Westminster, CO 80023
11/22/2016
FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
David L. Chavez
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.
648.0023 6302
EXAMINER
KOV ACEK, DAVID M
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2659
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
11/22/2016 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):
sarah@setterroche.com
pair_avaya@firsttofile.com
uspto@setterroche.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte DAVID L. CHAVEZ and LARRY J. HARDOUIN
Appeal2015-006310
Application 12/899,683 1
Technology Center 2600
Before KRISTEN L. DROESCH, KAMRAN JIV ANI, and
JOHN D. HAMANN, Administrative Patent Judges.
HAMANN, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
Appellants file this appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the
Examiner's Final Rejection of claims 1, 3-19, 21, and 22. We have
jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). We affirm.
1 According to Appellants, the real party in interest is Avaya Inc. App. Br.
2.
Appeal2015-006310
Application 12/899,683
THE CLAIMED INVENTION
Appellants' claimed invention relates to generating a transcript from a
conversation between users, and, inter alia, querying a definition source for
a definition for a word in the transcript, and displaying the definition. See
Abstract. Claim 1 is illustrative of the subject matter of the appeal and is
reproduced below.
1. A method of operating a communication system,
compnsmg:
generating a transcript of at least a portion of a
conversation between a plurality of users, the transcript including
a plurality of subsets of characters;
displaying the transcript on a plurality of communication
devices;
identifying an occurrence of at least one selected subset of
characters from the plurality of subsets of characters;
determining a context of the conversation from subsets of
the plurality of subsets of characters other than the at least one
selected subset;
selecting the definition source from a plurality of
definition sources based at least in part on the determined
context;
querying the definition source for at least one definition
for the selected subset of characters; and
displaying the definition for the selected subset of
characters on the plurality of communication devices.
REJECTIONS ON APPEAL
(1) The Examiner rejected claims 1, 3, 5-8, 10-19, 21, and 22
under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over the combination of
Mikan et al. (US 2010/0158213 Al; published June 24, 2010) (hereinafter
"Mikan") and Charlier et al. (US 7,844,460 B2; issued Nov. 30, 2010)
(hereinafter "Charlier").
2
Appeal2015-006310
Application 12/899,683
(2) The Examiner rejected claim 4 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
being unpatentable over the combination of Mikan, Charlier, and Gallagher
et al. (US 2009/0063134 Al; published Mar. 5, 2009).
(3) The Examiner rejected claim 9 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
being unpatentable over the combination of Mikan, Charlier, and Phillips
(US 2010/0106497 Al; published Apr. 29, 2010).
ANALYSIS
We have reviewed the Examiner's rejections in light of Appellants'
contentions that the Examiner erred. In reaching our decision, we consider
all evidence presented and all arguments made by Appellants.
We disagree with Appellants' arguments, and we incorporate herein
and adopt as our own the findings, conclusions, and reasons set forth by the
Examiner in (1) the July 3, 2014 Final Office Action ("Final Act." 2-19) and
(2) the April 8, 2015 Examiner's Answer (Ans. 2---6). We highlight and
address, however, specific findings and arguments below for emphasis.
(1) Selecting definition source and querying for a definition
Appellants argue the combination of Mikan and Charlier, and Charlier
in particular, fails to teach or suggest for claim 1 the limitations of "selecting
the definition source from a plurality of definition sources based at least in
part on the determined context; [and] querying the definition source for at
least one definition for the selected subset of characters." See App. Br. 7-8;
Reply Br. 2. Specifically, Appellants argue these steps must be performed in
order and argue Charlier fails to teach or suggest "determining a definition
source from a plurality of sources prior to making the search." App. Br. 7
(bold emphasis added). Appellants then contend Charlier instead teaches or
3
Appeal2015-006310
Application 12/899,683
suggests ( i) searching multimedia for key terms, and then (ii) filtering the
multimedia using a correlation threshold. See App. Br. 7 (citing Charlier
col. 3, 11. 41--49; col. 4, 11. 31--44). Appellants further argue "multimedia is
retrieved using a search engine, [but] the multimedia itself is never used as a
definition source that can be queried to determine a definition for a subset of
characters." See Reply Br. 2.
The Examiner finds, and we agree, the combination, and Charlier in
particular, teaches or suggests the disputed limitations. See Ans. 3--4; see
also Final Act. 9 (citing col. 3, 11. 41--49; col. 4, 11. 31--44, 52-58). The
Examiner finds claim 1 does not require determining the definition source
prior to searching a definition source for definitions, as Appellants contend.
See Ans. 3 (finding "such a limitation is not found anywhere within the
language of claim 1 "). We agree with this finding. "Unless the steps of a
method actually recite an order, the steps are not ordinarily construed to
require one." Interactive Gift Express, Inc. v. CompuServe Inc., 231 F.3d
859, 875 (Fed. Cir. 2000).
The Examiner further finds, and we agree, Charlier teaches or
suggests searching for multimedia sources, such as text, audio, or video,
pertaining to the key terms (i.e., selected character subsets), which provides
"definition[ s] in of itself." See Ans. 4 (citing Charlier col. 3, 11. 41--49, 52-
57); see also id. (citing Charlier col. 4, 11. 31-34) (finding "such media helps
to illustrate the meaning of the key terms"); Final Act. 9. We also note that
the Specification provides that the results of an internet search can be a
definition source. Spec. i-f 28.
The Examiner also finds, and we agree, Charlier teaches or suggests
selecting which definition( s) from the searched multimedia sources to
4
Appeal2015-006310
Application 12/899,683
provide to the user based on a required correlation between the media source
and key term, and this selection includes selecting the definition source, as
claimed. See Ans. 4 (citing Charlier col. 4, 11. 31--44); Final Act. 9.
(2) Determining a context
Appellants argue the combination of references, and Charlier in
particular, fails to teach or suggest "determin[ing] a context of the
conversation from subsets of the plurality of subsets of characters other than
the at least one selected subset," as recited in claim 15. App. Br. 8.
Specifically, Appellants argue Charlier instead teaches "determining
whether a listener is familiar with a key term based upon analysis of
previous conversations." Id. (citing Charlier col. 2, 1. 66 to col. 3, 1. 4; col.
4, 11. 28-34) (emphasis added).
The Examiner finds, and we agree, Charlier teaches this disputed
limitation. See Ans. 5. Specifically, the Examiner finds, and we agree,
Charlier teaches determining context utilizing character subsets of the instant
conversation, including when the user or the topic is new to the system. See
id. (citing Charlier col. 4, 11. 4--20; col. 8, 11. 6-19).
CONCLUSION
Based on our findings above, we sustain the Examiner's rejections of
claims 1, 15, and 19, for which Appellants contend the above arguments
apply. We also sustain the Examiner's rejections of the remaining claims on
appeal, for which Appellants did not provide separate arguments.
DECISION
We affirm the Examiner's rejections of claims 1, 3-19, 21, and 22.
5
Appeal2015-006310
Application 12/899,683
No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with
this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a)(l )(iv).
AFFIRMED
6