Ex Parte Dube et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Jan 26, 2017

11673457 (P.T.A.B. Jan. 26, 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.
11/673,457 02/09/2007 Parijat Dube YOR920060596US1 2730
48150 7590 01/27/2017
MCGINN INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY LAW GROUP, PLLC
8321 OLD COURTHOUSE ROAD
SUITE 200
VIENNA, VA 22182-3817
EXAMINER
INTAVONG, JIRAPON
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2652
MAIL DATE DELIVERY MODE
01/27/2017 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 PARIJAT DUBE and LAURA WYNTER
Appeal 2016-004240
Application 11/673,4571
Technology Center 2600
Before JOHN A. EVANS, LARRY J. HUME, and ALEX S. YAP,
Administrative Patent Judges.
EVANS, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
Appellants seek our review under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) of the
Examiner’s Final Rejection of Claims 1, 3, 6, 11, 14, 15, 17, 18, 20, 22, and
24—31. Claims App’x. Claims 2, 4, 5, 7—10, 12, 13, 16, 19, 21, and 23 are
canceled. Id. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We REVERSE.2
1 The Appeal Brief identifies International Business Machines Corporation,
as the real party in interest. App. Br. 1.
2 Rather than reiterate the arguments of Appellants and the Examiner, we
refer to the Appeal Brief (filed July 29, 2015, “App. Br.”), the Reply Brief
(filed Mar. 4, 2016, “Reply Br.”), the Examiner’s Answer (mailed Jan. 19,
2016, “Ans.”), the Final Action (mailed Dec. 29, 2014, “Final Act.”), and
the Amended Specification (filed July 22, 2013, “Spec.”) for their respective
details.
Appeal 2016-004240
Application 11/673,457
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
The claims relate to systems and methods for presenting
advertisement to a caller waiting for service. See Abstract.
INVENTION
Claims 1, 15, and 18 are independent. An understanding of the
invention can be derived from a reading of exemplary Claim 1, which is
reproduced below with some formatting added:
1. An apparatus, comprising:
a detector to determine that a caller is waiting for service;
a timer that is initiated when said caller is detected as
waiting, said timer being stopped when said caller is detected as
no longer waiting, wherein a waiting time of said caller, as
measured by said timer, is stored as waiting time data;
a calculator, as executed by a processor on a computer, to
calculate an estimated waiting time for said caller;
a presentation module to present an advertisement to said
waiting caller; and
a selection module to select said advertisement presented
to said caller from a plurality of advertisements available for
presentation to callers,
wherein said calculator divides said estimated waiting
time into a plurality of slots, said selected advertisement being
presented to said caller in a first slot of said plurality of slots,
wherein a compensation is provided to have said
advertisement presented to the waiting caller,
wherein said selection module makes a selection based
upon a priority that is determined based upon:
a relative importance of slots of said plurality of slots; and
2
Appeal 2016-004240
Application 11/673,457
a relative importance of presenting a specific
advertisement based on what is known or can be deduced about
said caller,
wherein a price that an advertiser pays is based at least in part
upon said priority, and
wherein said waiting time data is used for calculation of a
likelihood that a caller will continue to wait, including a
likelihood that a caller will remain waiting for each time slot.
References and Rejections
The Examiner relies upon the prior art as follows:
Kilander, et al. US 5,742,675 Apr. 21, 1998
North, et al. US 5,992,888 Nov. 30, 1999
Jensen, et al. US 2002/0018554 Al Feb. 14, 2002
Dilger, et al. US 2003/0058707 Al Mar. 27, 2003
Brown, et al. US 2003/0112927 Al June 19, 2003
Vitenson, et al. US 2007/0116227 Al May 24, 2007
Shaffer, et al. US 2007/0211879 Al Sept. 13, 2007
The claims stand rejected as follows:
1. Claims 1, 3, 6, 11, 14, 18, 20, and 25 stand rejected under pre-AIA 35
U.S.C. § 103(a) as obvious over Brown, Dilger, and North. Final Act.
6-16.
2. Claims 22 and 24 stand rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
obvious over Brown, Dilger, North, and Kilander. Final Act. 16—18.
3. Claims 26, 27, and 28 stand rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. § 103(a)
as obvious over Brown, Dilger, North, and Shaffer. Final Act. 18—20.
3
Appeal 2016-004240
Application 11/673,457
4. Claims 15, 17, 29, and 30 stand rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C.
§103 (a) as obvious over Brown, Dilger, North, Vitenson, and
Kilander. Final Act. 21—26.
5. Claim 31 stands rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as obvious
over Brown, Dilger, North, Vitenson, Kilander, and Jensen. Final
Act. 27-28.
ANALYSIS
We have reviewed the rejections of Claims 1, 3, 6, 11, 14, 15, 17, 18,
20, 22, and 24—31 in light of Appellants’ arguments the Examiner erred.
We consider Appellants’ arguments seriatim, as they are presented in
the Appeal Brief, pages 9-16.
Independent Claim 1: obviousness over Brown, Dilger, and North
A calculator.
The Examiner finds:
In response to applicant’s argument that the references fail to
show certain features of applicant’s invention, it is noted that the
features upon which applicant relies (i.e., a calculator, as executed by a
processor on a computer, to calculate an estimated waiting time for said
caller; ... wherein said calculator divides said estimated waiting time
into a plurality of slots, said selected advertisement being presented to
said caller in a first slot of said plurality of slots) are not recited in the
rejected claim(s).
Advisory Action, mailed Apr. 8, 2015 (“Adv. Act.”) 3; see also Final
Act. 2—3. Appellants contend, and we agree, Claim 1 “expressly recites” the
accused recitation. App. Br. 9.
4
Appeal 2016-004240
Application 11/673,457
Wherein said calculator divides said estimated waiting time
into a plurality of slots.
Appellants traverse the Examiner’s finding that Brown teaches a
calculator that “divides said estimated waiting time into a plurality of slots,”
as claimed. App. Br. 9. Appellants contend Brown merely ‘“describes that
hold times are ‘somewhat predictable based on current hold times and on
hold characteristics of each of the callers either on hold or speaking with a
representative’, and that such hold spaces can be detected and filled with
advertising.” Id. at 10. Appellants argue that even if a hold time estimation
is somehow taught by Brown, there is no suggestion for a calculator to
divide the estimated hold time into a plurality of slots, as clearly recited in
Claim 1. Id. The Examiner cites Brown, Paragraph 152 as teaching this
limitation. Ans. 23.
Appellants contend there is no teaching in the cited art of calculating
and then dividing the estimated wait time, as claimed. Reply Br. 1,3
Brown teaches the “on hold time within on hold queue 72 is
somewhat predictable based on current hold times and on hold
characteristics of each of the callers either on hold or speaking with a
representative.” Brown 1152. We fail to find, based on the record before
us, where Brown teaches an estimated wait time is calculated and then
divided into a plurality of slots, as claimed.
In view of the foregoing discussion, we decline to sustain the rejection
of Claim 1. Because each of the remaining claims incorporates such
limitations and because the Examiner cites only to Brown as teaching such
3 The Reply Brief is not paginated.
5
Appeal 2016-004240
Application 11/673,457
limitations, we also decline to sustain the rejection of Claims 3, 6, 11, 14,
15, 17, 18,20, 22, and 24—31.
DECISION
We REVERSE the rejection of Claims 1, 3, 6, 11, 14, 15, 17, 18, 20,
22, and 2A-31 under 35 U.S.C. §103.
REVERSED
6