14258848 (P.T.A.B. Aug. 28, 2018)

Ex Parte Eyeson

Patent Trial and Appeal BoardAug 28, 2018

14258848 (P.T.A.B. Aug. 28, 2018)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE 14/258,848 04/22/2014 48500 7590 08/30/2018 SHERIDAN ROSS P.C. 1560 BROADWAY, SUITE 1200 DENVER, CO 80202 FIRST NAMED INVENTOR Isaac K. Eyeson 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. 4366-658 5462 EXAMINER INTAVONG, JIRAPON ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 2652 NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE 08/30/2018 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_Avaya@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 ISAAC K. EYESON Appeal2018-001836 Application No. 14/258,848 1 Technology Center 2600 Before MAHSHID D. SAADAT, MARC S. HOFF, and DENISE M. POTHIER, Administrative Patent Judges. HOFF, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL STATEMENT OF THE CASE Appellant appeals under 35 U.S.C. Â§ 134 from a Final Rejection of claims 1-5, 7-15, 18, 19, 21, 23, and 24. 2 We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. Â§ 6(b). We affirm. Appellant's invention is a system and method for suggesting topics for discussion in a voice or video communication session. The content of a communication session is monitored, and a keyword, phrase, emotion, or 1 The real party in interest is Avaya Inc. 2 Claims 6, 16, 17, 20, 22, and 25 have been cancelled. Appeal2018-001836 Application No. 14/258,848 gesture related to a topic in the communication session is identified. A plurality of rules based on the identified content are applied. One rule is based on a first phrase spoken at the beginning of the communications session, and another rule is based on a second phrase spoken later on in the communications session. See Abstract; Claim 1. Claim 1 is exemplary of the claims on appeal: 1. A method comprising: monitoring, by a processor, content of a voice or video communication session between a first user at a first communication endpoint and a first agent of a contact center at a second communication endpoint, wherein the processor is in the contact center and is used to establish the voice or video communication session in a network; identifying, by the processor, one of a keyword, a phrase, an emotion, or a gesture included in the monitored content of the voice or video communication session; applying, by the processor, a rule based on the identified one of the keyword, the phrase, the emotion or the gesture, wherein the rule comprises a plurality of rules, wherein a first rule of the plurality of rules is based a first identified phrase spoken at the beginning of the voice or video communication session and a second rule of the plurality of rules is based on a second phrase spoken later on in the voice or vice communication session; in response to applying the rule based on the identified one of the keyword, the phrase, the emotion, or the gesture, generating, by the processor a plurality of topic suggestions for presentation to the first user; sending, by the processor, the plurality of topic suggestions to the first communication endpoint. The Examiner relies upon the following prior art in rejecting the claims on appeal: Fernandez us 5,596,634 Jan.21, 1997 2 Appeal2018-001836 Application No. 14/258,848 Filev US 2008/0269958 Al Scott US 2011/0010173 Al Schneider US 2011/0010637 Al Erbey US 2011/0208660 Al Watson US 2014/0241519 Al Shtivelman EP 1109119 A2 Oct. 30, 2008 Jan. 13, 2011 Jan. 13, 2011 Aug. 25, 2011 Aug. 28, 2014 June 20, 2001 Claims 1, 2, 4, 5, 7, 9-12, 14, 15, and 21 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. Â§ I03(a) as being unpatentable over Erbey and Scott. 3 Claims 8 and 18 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. Â§ I03(a) as being unpatentable over Erbey, Scott, and Schneider. Claim 19 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. Â§ I03(a) as being unpatentable over Erbey, Scott, and Filev. Claim 23 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. Â§ I03(a) as being unpatentable over Erbey, Scott, and Femandez. 4 Throughout this decision, we make reference to the Appeal Brief ("App. Br.," filed July 20, 2017), the Reply Brief ("Reply Br.," filed Dec. 13, 2017), and the Examiner's Answer ("Ans.," mailed Nov. 1, 2017) for their respective details. ISSUE Does the combination of Erbey and Scott disclose or fairly suggest applying a plurality of rules, wherein a first rule is based on a first identified phrase spoken at the beginning of a voice or video communication session, 3 The Examiner has withdrawn theÂ§ I03(a) rejection of claims 3 and 13 over Erbey and Scott. Ans. 15. 4 The Examiner has withdrawn theÂ§ I03(a) rejection of claim 24 over Erbey, Scott, and Watson. Ans. 15. 3 Appeal2018-001836 Application No. 14/258,848 and a second rule is based on a second phrase spoken later on in the voice or video communication session? ANALYSIS CLAIMS 1, 2, 4, 5, 9-12, 14, 15, AND 21 Independent claim 1 recites "identifying ... one of a keyword, a phrase, an emotion, or a gesture included in the monitored content of [a] voice or video communication session," and "applying ... a rule based on the identified one of the keyword, the phrase, the emotion or the gesture," wherein the rule comprises a plurality of rules, a first rule of the plurality being "based [on] a first identified phrase spoken at the beginning of the voice or video communication session," and a second rule of the plurality of rules being "based on a second phrase spoken later on in the voice or video communication session." Independent claim 11 recites substantially identical limitations. The Examiner finds that Scott discloses this limitation. Scott discloses a continuous voice and text recognition mode. Scott ,r 30. The Examiner finds that in continuous recognition mode, a first spoken word may occur at the beginning of the communication session and a second word may be spoken later on in the communication session. Id.; Advisory Action 2. Appellant argues that claims 1 and 11 require that the phrases be spoken in order based on the first and second rules. The first phrase has to be spoken at the beginning of the ... session and the second phrase has to be spoken later on. . . . The second rule cannot be invoked before the first rule. Reply Br. 5. 4 Appeal2018-001836 Application No. 14/258,848 Appellant is correct in asserting that the first phrase must be spoken before the second phrase. What the claims require, however, is (a) that a processor apply a plurality of rules, two of which are referred to as "first rule" and "second rule," that (b) the rule referred to as "first rule" is based on a "first" phrase spoken at the beginning of the session, and that ( c) the rule referred to as "second rule" is based on a "second" phrase spoken at a point in time subsequent to the point in time at which the first phrase is spoken. The claims do not require rules to be applied or invoked in any particular order. In fact, the word "invoked" does not appear in the claims. We agree with the Examiner's finding that in Scott's continuous recognition mode, "the ASR recognizes the entire conversation and can generate a list of topic preferences that were prominent during the conversation." Scott ,r 46. Thus, Scott teaches applying at least a first rule and a second rule, the first rule being based on a first identified phrase, and the second rule being based on a second phrase spoken later on than the first phrase. We find that the combination of Erbey and Scott discloses all the limitations of the claimed invention. We sustain the Examiner'sÂ§ 103(a) rejection of independent claims 1 and 11, as well as dependent claims 2, 4, 5, 9, 10, 12, 14, 15, and 21 not separately argued. CLAIM7 Claim 7, dependent from claim 1, recites that "an additional plurality of topic suggestions are identified by the first user prior to an initiation of the voice or video communication session." 5 Appeal2018-001836 Application No. 14/258,848 Appellant argues that Erbey does not disclose these limitations, because a customer is connected to a software application, not a "first agent of a contact center." App. Br. 12, citing Erbey ,r,r 62----67. We are not persuaded that the Examiner erred. The Examiner finds, and we agree, that Erbey discloses that a customer logs into a customer service web site and makes an inquiry. Ans. 7; Erbey ,r 52. In response to the inquiry, Erbey's Customer Relations Expert (CRE) engine generates a list of one or more scripts. Erbey ,r 53. In one embodiment, the script is displayed to an agent, who provides information from the script to the customer, by reading the script over the telephone. Erbey ,r 54. Thus, we find that Erbey discloses that an additional plurality of topic suggestions are identified by the first user (the customer, by interacting with Erbey' s CRE) prior to initiation of a voice or video communications session (Erbey discloses that an agent provides information from the script, inherently after the script is generated by the CRE). CLAIMS 8, 18, 19, AND 23 The rejections of claims 8, 18, 19, and 23 are not separately argued. Appellant deems these claims to be allowable "for at least the same reasons" as independent claims 1 and 11. Accordingly, we sustain theÂ§ 103(a) rejection of claims 8 and 18 over Erbey, Scott, and Schneider for the reasons expressed with respect to independent claims 1 and 11, supra. We sustain theÂ§ 103(a) rejection of claim 19 over Erbey, Scott, and Filev for the reasons expressed with respect to independent claim 11, supra. 6 Appeal2018-001836 Application No. 14/258,848 We sustain theÂ§ 103(a) rejection of claim 23 over Erbey, Scott, and F emandez for the reasons expressed with respect to independent claim 1, supra. CONCLUSION The combination of Erbey and Scott discloses applying a plurality of rules, wherein a first rule is based on a first identified phrase spoken at the beginning of a voice or video communication session, and a second rule is based on a second phrase spoken later on in the voice or video communication session. DECISION The Examiner's decision to reject claims 1, 2, 4, 5, 7-12, 14, 15, 18, 19, 21, and 23 under 35 U.S.C. Â§ 103(a) is affirmed. No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. Â§ 1.136(a)(l). AFFIRMED 7