Ex Parte Doan et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Sep 15, 2016

12114660 (P.T.A.B. Sep. 15, 2016)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE
12/114,660 05/02/2008
87220 7590 09/15/2016
Walder Intellectual Property Law (END)
C/O Walder Intellectual Property Law, P.C.
17304 Preston Road
Suite 200
Dallas, TX 75252
FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
Christopher H. Doan
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.
AUS920080242US 1 3546
EXAMINER
GUTIERREZ, ANDRES E
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2141
MAILDATE DELIVERY MODE
09/15/2016 PAPER
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.
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte CHRISTOPHER H. DOAN, TREVOR LIVINGSTON, PRA VEEN
P. HIRSA VE, and VENKATESAN RAMAMOORTHY
Appeal2015---002090 1
Application 12/114,660
Technology Center 2100
Before JEAN R. HOMERE, JEFFREYS. SMITH, and
AARON W. MOORE, Administrative Patent Judges.
HOMERE, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Appellants seek our review under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) of the
Examiner's Final Rejection of claims 1, 3-8, 10-12, 14--16, and 19-22,
which constitute all of the claims pending in this appeal. App. Br. 20. We
have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b ).
We affirm.
1 Appellants identify the real party in interest as International Business
Machines Corporation. App. Br. 2.
Appeal2015-002090
Application 12/114,660
Appellants' Invention
Appellants' invention is directed to a method and system for
providing self help and automated technical assistance to a user in response
to the user reporting a technical issue associated with a computing asset.
Spec. i-f 5. In particular, upon receiving from the user a problem ticket
indicating an issue associated with the user's computing system, the ticket is
automatically linked to an archived ticket and a solution associated therewith
such that the user can select a related video describing how the user can
personally fix the identified computing system issue. Id. i-f 7, Fig. 1.
Illustrative Claim
Independent claim 1 is illustrative, and reads as follows:
1. A method comprising:
receiving, by a computer services administrative system, a
ticket from a user, wherein the ticket indicates an issue to be
addressed for at least one computing asset associated with the user;
and
without assistance from an administrator of the computer
services administrative system:
linking, by the computer services administrative system,
the ticket to an archived ticket mad to a solution associated with
the archived ticket;
locating, by the computer services administrative system,
at least one user selectable solution to address the issue,
wherein the solution associated with the archived ticket and the
at least one user selectable solution each have a user selectable
video and a user selectable automated command, wherein the
2
Appeal2015-002090
Application 12/114,660
user selectable video provides a video description of how the
user can personally fix a computing asset issue associated with
the at least one user selectable solution and wherein the user
selectable automated command, when executed by the user, will
implement the solution associated with the at least one user
selectable solution;
presenting, by the computer services administrative
system, the solution associated with the archived ticket and the
at least one user selectable solution to the user; and
responsive to the user selecting the solution associated
with the archived ticket or one or more solutions from the at
least one user selectable solution, transmitting, by the computer
services administrative system, either the solution associated
with the archived ticket or the one or more solutions to the at
least one computing asset.
Rejections on Appeal
Claims 1, 3, 4, 6-8, 11, and 14--16 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103 (a) as being unpatentable over the combination of Deyo et al. (US
2009/0132920 Al, May 21, 2009), Hibbets (US 2009/0063386 Al, Mar. 5,
2009), and Sullivan et al. (US 6,694,314 Bl, Feb. 17, 2004).
Claims 5, 10, 12, 19, 20, 21, and 22 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103 (a) as being unpatentable over the combination of Deyo, Hibbets,
Sullivan, and Tsai (US 2009/0013374 Al, Jan. 8, 2009).
3
Appeal2015-002090
Application 12/114,660
ANALYSIS
We consider Appellants' arguments seriatim, as they are presented in
the Appeal Brief, pages 5-20, and the Reply Brief, pages 2-19. 2
We have reviewed the Examiner's rejections in light of Appellants'
arguments. We are unpersuaded by Appellants' contentions. Except as
otherwise indicated hereinbelow, we adopt as our own the findings and
reasons set forth in the Examiner's Answer in response to Appellants'
Appeal Brief. Ans. 14--25. However, we highlight and address specific
arguments and findings for emphasis as follows.
Regarding the rejection of claim 1, Appellants argue that the
combination of Deyo, Hibbets, and Sullivan does not teach or suggest
linking to an archived ticket and associated solution a ticket received from a
user indicating an issue to be addressed with regard to the user's computing
asset. App. Br. 7-11, Reply Br. 2-8.3 In particular, Appellants argue that
although Deyo discloses a mechanism that allows users to access video help
clips generated by other users, the metadata tags used to index the video
2 Rather than reiterate the arguments of Appellants and the Examiner, we
refer to the Appeal Brief (filed June 24, 2014), the Reply Brief (filed Nov.
20, 2014) and the Answer (mailed Oct. 2, 2014) for their respective details.
We have considered in this Decision only those arguments Appellants
actually raised in the Briefs. Any other arguments Appellants could have
made but chose not to make in the Briefs are deemed to be waived. See 3 7
C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(l)(iv) (2012).
3 Appellants argue that the Examiner did not provide details in earlier office
actions to support the prima facie case of obviousness against the claims on
appeal, and has belatedly provided such details in the Answer. App. Br. 8-
9; Reply Br. 2-3. This argument is moot because Appellants have availed
themselves in the Reply Brief of the opportunity to address the specific
findings made by the Examiner in the Answer. App. Br. 6-9; Reply Br. 2-3.
4
Appeal2015-002090
Application 12/114,660
clips do not teach or suggest a ticket received by a user. Reply Br. 4-5
(citing Deyo i-fi-131-32).
This argument is not persuasive. As correctly noted by Appellants,
the Examiner does not rely upon Deyo' s disclosure of the search terms or the
metadata tags to teach the created ticket linked to an archived ticket along
with a solution associated therewith. Reply Br. 5. Instead, the Examiner
relies upon the combination of Deyo' s disclosure of the search terms as
modified by Hibbets' disclosure of linking a generated ticket with closed
tickets and associated solutions to teach the disputed limitation. Ans. 14-16
(citing Deyo i-fi-f 18, 21, 30, 35, Hibbets i-fi-f 14, 16). Because the disclosed
input search terms pertain to a computer asset issue identified by the user,
they can form the basis for generating a corresponding issue ticket for which
a solution is obtained, and selected by the user. Further, Appellants argue
that Hibbets' disclosure of creating the ticket or identifying related
information from past tickets to assist a support technician, or an engineer
who is different from the user experiencing the issue, vitiates the claim
language, which precludes assistance from an administrator of the computer
services administration system. App. Br. 10; Reply Br. 6-7. This argument
is not persuasive because it is not responsive the specific findings made by
the Examiner. In particular, the Examiner does not rely upon Hibbets for its
entire disclosure. Instead, the Examiner only relies upon Hibbets for the
limited disclosure of creating a ticket based upon a computer issue reported
by a user, and associating the created ticket with archived tickets along with
associated solutions, to complement Deyo' s teaching of the user issuing a
search query to identify available solutions pertaining to an identified
computer issue. Ans. 16. Therefore, the proposed combination of Deyo and
5
Appeal2015-002090
Application 12/114,660
Hibbets would predictably result in a system wherein, in response to a user
search query, an issue ticket is automatically generated regarding a computer
asset to thereby present the user with a list of archived tickets along with
corresponding solutions from which the user selects a suitable solution for
the ticket at hand. Accordingly, we agree with the Examiner that the
combination of the cited references is properly supported by sufficient
rationale. Id. Therefore, we are not persuaded the Examiner erred in
rejecting claim 1.
Regarding the rejection of claim 7, Appellants argue that although the
statement of the rejection indicates the claim is rejected over the
combination of Deyo, Hibbets, and Sullivan, the Examiner relies solely upon
Hibbets' disclosure of the user submitting a written description of a technical
issue through an issue submission form via email to teach the claimed
feature of the user creating the ticket. App. Br. 11-12; Reply Br. 9-10
(citing Hibbets i-fi-122-23). Accordingly, Appellants argue that because
Hibbets discloses the ticket is created by an administrator other than the
user, Hibbets does not teach the disputed limitation. Id. This argument is
not persuasive. Although the Examiner only cites to Hibbets to teach the
disputed limitation, claim 7 is nonetheless rejected over the cited
combination because of its dependency upon independent claim 1, which is
also rejected on the same combination. Therefore, as discussed above, the
specific rejection made by the Examiner only relies upon Hibbets' disclosure
of creating a ticket to thereby modify Deyo' s teaching of a user search for a
solution to a technical issue. Accordingly, we sustain the rejection of claim
7.
6
Appeal2015-002090
Application 12/114,660
Regarding the rejection of claim 16, Appellants argue the combination
of Deyo, Hibbets, and Sullivan does not teach or suggest accepting user
input via a menu to create the ticket. App. 12-13; Reply Br. 11-12. This
argument is not persuasive. Hibbets' disclosure of the user submitting a
written description of a technical issue through an issue submission form to
generate a ticket, taken in combination with Deyo' s disclosure of locating
possible solutions to an issue identified in a user search query would
predictably result in the creation of the ticket from the user's input to an
interface. Accordingly, we sustain the rejection of claim 16.
Regarding the rejection of claim 5, Appellants argue that the
combination of Deyo, Hibbets, Sullivan, and Tsai does not teach or suggest
tracking the history of a selectable solution to determine the level of success
thereof. App. Br. 14--16, Reply Br. 13-14. This argument is not persuasive.
We agree with the Examiner that Tsai's disclosure of tracking the history of
a solution progression would complement the combination of Deyo and
Hibbets to thereby result in a system in which the history associated with
solutions of archived tickets linked with a created ticket can be tracked to
readily ascertain the likelihood of success of each of the retrieved solutions.
Ans. 21-22 (citing Tsai i-f 31). Accordingly, we sustain the rejection of
claims 5 and 12.
Regarding claims 3, 4, 6, 8, 10-12, 14, 15, and 19-22, because
Appellants reiterate substantially the same arguments as those previously
discussed for patentability of claims 1, 5, 7, and 16 above, claims 3, 4, 6, 8,
10-12, 14, 15, and 19-22, fall therewith. See 37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(l)(iv).
7
Appeal2015-002090
Application 12/114,660
DECISION
For the above reasons, we affirm the Examiner's rejection of claims 1,
3-8, 10-12, 14--16, and 19-22.
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
8