Ex Parte Chavez et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Feb 27, 2017

12722263 (P.T.A.B. Feb. 27, 2017)

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.
12/722,263 03/11/2010 David L. Chavez 4366-464 2735
48500 7590
SHERIDAN ROSS P.C.
1560 BROADWAY, SUITE 1200
DENVER, CO 80202
EXAMINER
CHU, WUTCHUNG
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2468
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
03/01/2017 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):
cjacquet@ sheridanross.com
pair_Avay a @ firsttofile. com
edocket @ sheridanross .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
Appeal 2016-004432
Application 12/722,2631
Technology Center 2400
Before ALLEN R. MacDONALD, JOHN F. HORVATH, and
SHARON FENICK, Administrative Patent Judges.
FENICK, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
This is an appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Examiner’s Final
Rejection of claims 1—20. (Appeal Br. 2.) We have jurisdiction under 35
U.S.C. § 6(b)(1).
We affirm.
1 Appellants identify Avaya Inc. as the real party in interest. (Appeal Br. 2.)
Appeal 2016-004432
Application 12/722,263
Invention
Appellants’ invention relates to providing contextual information to
one or more parties to a communications session. (Spec. Abstract.)
Representative Claims
Claim 1, reproduced below with certain key limitations emphasized, is
representative:
1. A method for delivering contextual information, comprising:
initiating by a first party a first communication session;
in response to initiating the first communication session,
identifying at least a second party to the first communication
session; and
in response to identifying the second party to the first
communication session:
obtaining information related to the second party from a
context service, wherein the information related to the second
party provides the first party with information regarding a
context of the first communication session and wherein the
context is related to the second party and provides the first
party with a topic for the content of the first communication;
and
delivering the information related to the second party to a
communication device associated with the first party to the first
communication session, wherein delivering information related
to the second party to the communication device associated
with the first party before the second party answers and
includes inserting the information in a call data stream message
associated with establishing the first communication session.
Rejections
The Examiner rejects claims 1—20 under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. § 103(a)
as being unpatentable over Scott et al. (US 7,623,645 Bl; iss. Nov. 24,
2009), Zohar et al. (US 2008/0273680 Al; pub. Nov. 6, 2008), and Gilleland
(US 2002/0073203 Al; pub. June 13, 2002). (Final Action 3—22.)
2
Appeal 2016-004432
Application 12/722,263
Issue
Did the Examiner err in finding that Scott and Zohar, in combination
with Gilleland, teaches or suggests “the information related to the second
party provides the first party with information regarding a context of the first
communication session and wherein the context is related to the second
party and provides the first party with a topic for the content of the first
communication,” as recited in claim 1?
ANALYSIS
The Examiner finds Scott’s teachings regarding retrieving the location
of a called party, and Zohar’s teachings regarding retrieving various pieces
of information relating to a called party (e.g., a phone number, list of
alternate phone numbers, available calling hours, payment details), teach or
suggest context information related to the second (non-initiating/called)
party. (Final Action 3—6; Answer 3.)
Appellants argue that the information the Examiner finds to be taught
or suggested by Scott and Zohar does not qualify as “information regarding
a context” according to the broadest reasonable interpretation of the claim
term. (Appeal Br. 7—9; Reply Br. 2.) Specifically, Appellants argue that the
information provided by Zohar is not context information. (Appeal Br. 9.)
The Specification notes that “context information . . . can comprise
information regarding an identified party to the communications session.”
(Spec. 2:24—26.) In one embodiment, the Specification discloses that
“sources of contextual information include, but are not limited to, an identity
database . . . and a communication archive” and that the identity database
may comprise “information which allows a user’s identity to be mapped to
other identities or aliases used by that user” such as email addresses or
3
Appeal 2016-004432
Application 12/722,263
phone numbers. {Id. 6:25—31.) The Specification further notes that
“[cjontext information 116 is not limited to any particular type [and in some
embodiments] includes personal information regarding another user or party
304 to a communications session.” {Id. 17:7—10.)
In light of these non-limiting definitions and descriptions, we find no
error in the Examiner’s finding that the information retrieved by Zohar
comprises context information according to the broadest reasonable
interpretation of the term in light of the Specification.
Appellants additionally argue that neither Zohar nor Scott teach
utilizing the retrieved information “as the topic for the content of the
communication.” (Appeal Br. 7—9; Reply Br. 2.)
We agree with the Examiner that the provided “address, phone
numbers, hours, etc.” in Zohar provide a topic for a communication.
(Advisory Action, citing Zohar 148; see also Final Action 5; Answer 3,
each citing Zohar 148.) Moreover, Appellants’ argument that contact
options are not topics for communication is not persuasive of Examiner error
because it does not address the other information provided in the cited
paragraph of Zohar, namely “payment details,” “files to be sent to device
application 20,” and “commercial or promotional information to be
delivered to the caller.” (Zohar 148.) Even were a party’s contact options
not properly topics for a communication, this other information disclosed in
Zohar would teach or suggest the “topic for the content of. . .
communication” under the broadest reasonable interpretation of that claim
term in light of the Specification.
Therefore, we are not persuaded of error in the Examiner’s rejection
of claim 1 with respect to this issue, and we affirm the rejection of this
4
Appeal 2016-004432
Application 12/722,263
claim, and of claims 2—20, not argued separately with particularity (Appeal
Br. 9-10).
DECISION
We affirm the Examiner’s rejection of claims 1—20 under pre-AIA 35
U.S.C. § 103(a).
Pursuant to 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a)(l)(iv), no time period for taking any
subsequent action in connection with this appeal may be extended.
AFFIRMED
5