Ex Parte Fitchett et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Feb 18, 2016

11502570 (P.T.A.B. Feb. 18, 2016)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE
111502,570 08/11/2006
27820 7590 02/22/2016
WITHROW & TERRANOVA, PLLC
2530 Meridian Parkway
Suite 300
Durham, NC 27713
FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
Jeff Fitchett
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.
7000-681 8790
EXAMINER
ANSARI, NAJEEBUDDIN
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2468
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
02/22/2016 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):
patents@wt-ip.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte JEFF FITCHETT, ANDREW PARYZEK, KENT FELSKE,
GUY DUXBURY, and ALAN GRAVES
Appeal2014-002781
Application 11/502,5701
Technology Center 2400
Before ELENI MANTIS MERCADER, BARBARA A. BENOIT, and
STACY B. MARGOLIES, Administrative Patent Judges.
MARGOLIES, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
Appellants appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Examiner's
Final Rejection of claims 1-50. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C.
§ 6(b ).
We affirm.
1 According to Appellants, the real party in interest is Rockstar Consortium
US LP. App. Br. 1.
Appeal2014-002781
Application 11/502,570
SUMMARY OF THE INVENTION
The invention is directed to dynamically re-routing an in-progress
communication session from one destination device to another based on
location and presence information. See Abstract.
Claim 1 is illustrative of the subject matter on appeal and is
reproduced below:
1. A method for re-routing an in-progress
communications session destined for a particular entity in
a communications system, said method comprising:
a) obtaining location information indicative of a
current location of the particular entity;
b) obtaining presence information indicative of a
current activity status of the particular entity;
c) dynamically transferring the in-progress
communications session from a first destination
device to a second destination device based on a
combination of said current location and said
current activity status of the particular entity.
REFERENCES AND REJECTION
The Examiner rejected claims 1-50 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable in view of Agrawal et al. (US 2006/0093118 Al; May 4, 2006)
and Klein et al. (US 2006/0072726 Al; Apr. 6, 2006). Final Act. 2-37.
2
Appeal2014-002781
Application 11/502,570
ISSUE
The issue is whether the Examiner erred in finding that the
combination of Agrawal and Klein teaches "dynamically transferring the in-
progress communications session from a first destination device to a second
destination device based on a combination of said current location and said
current activity status of the particular entity," as recited in independent
claim 1 and similarly recited in independent claims 11, 28, and 50.
ANALYSIS
Appellants argue that neither Agrawal nor Klein, either alone or in
combination, discloses or suggests transferring an in-progress
communication session based on a combination of a current location and a
current activity status of an entity. App. Br. 7. Specifically, Appellants
argue that "at the very most, Agrawal discloses routing an ongoing call to a
telephony device by anticipating a future location of a user." App. Br. 7
(emphasis removed). Appellants also argue that Agrawal does not disclose
that "a call is transferred based on a current activity status of a user." App.
Br. 7 (emphasis removed). Appellants further argue that Klein does not
disclose that a call is transferred based on a current activity status of a user.
App. Br. 7. Appellants argue that "the 'activities' referred to by Klein
actually relate to locations at which the user is and, therefore, to which calls
will be routed." Id. According to Appellants, Klein discloses "how to route
a call based on where the user is physically as determined by what the user is
doing at a particular point in time," and not based on a "current activity
status" as recited in claim 1. Id. at 7-8.
3
Appeal2014-002781
Application 11/502,570
The Examiner responds that the specification defines "entity" as a
person or computing device, and that Agrawal teaches polling a device
periodically for the status of device. See Ans. 40 (citing Agrawal i-fi-f 114--
117). The Examiner thus finds that Agrawal teaches obtaining presence
information indicative of a current activity status of a particular entity. See
Ans. 40. The Examiner also finds that even if Agrawal fails to explicitly
teach obtaining presence information indicative of a current activity status to
transfer the in-progress communication from one destination device to
another, Klein teaches this feature. See Ans. 40-41. The Examiner explains
that Klein discloses that "the user can configure call routing for each mode
(activity) the user defines such as 'My Default', 'At Work,' 'At Home,' and
'Commuting."' Ans. 41. The Examiner thus finds that Klein inherently
teaches and/or implies that calls are redirected to additional destination
devices based on user activity or presence information. See Ans. 41. In
light of the collective teachings of Agrawal and Klein, the Examiner finds
that "a person of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to
combine the teachings of providing activity or presence information as
taught in ... Klein with the periodic polling functionality of a particular
device in Agrawal to further route a communication session to a preferable
destination device" based on location and presence information. Ans. 42.
Appellants' arguments that the Examiner erred are not persuasive.
We agree with the Examiner that Agrawal and Klein in combination teach
"dynamically transferring the in-progress communications session from a
first destination device to a second destination device based on a
combination of said current location and said current activity status of the
particular entity," as recited in claim 1 and similarly recited in claims 11, 28,
4
Appeal2014-002781
Application 11/502,570
and 50. As the Examiner finds, Agrawal teaches re-routing calls to different
destination devices based on user location. See Ans. 3--4 and 40; Final Act.
3--4. For example, Agrawal discloses that because "users often moved
around in a networked environment and often move from room to room," a
call can be rerouted to a device in a room that a user is about to enter.
Agrawal i-f 43; see also Agrawal i-fi-199-112. Agrawal also teaches obtaining
presence information indicative of a current activity status of a particular
"entity" in that it discloses polling for, and notifying users of, device events,
such as notifying a user that a coffee pot has finished brewing. See Agrawal
i-fi-1 113-117. The claim term "entity" is broad: the specification states that
an "entity" "may be a person or an object, such as a computer or a machine."
Spec. i-f 31.
Klein also teaches re-routing calls-specifically, re-routing a call to a
different device based on a user's current activity status. See Klein i-f 47 ("A
telephone service provider may route the telephone call ... based on user
activity."), i-fi-180-90; see also Ans. 4--5, 41; Final Act. 4--5 and 40--41.
Figures 3-5 of Klein illustrate user interfaces that allow a user to designate a
particular telephone device to be called for a given "[a]ctivity." See Klein,
Figs. 3-5 and i-fi-179-87. For example, Klein discloses re-routing a call from
a mobile phone to an office phone during the "'At Work' activity," and re-
routing a call from an office phone to a mobile phone during the
"'Commuting' activity." See Klein i-fi-186 and 87. While a given activity
may be coincident with a particular location, Klein teaches that a user can
configure the system based on activities that are not coincident with a
particular location, such as commuting. See Klein i-fi-180, 87, and Fig. 5.
The broad claim term "activity" is not limited to an activity that is
5
Appeal2014-002781
Application 11/502,570
completely separate from a particular location. Indeed, the specification
equates "activity status" with "presence" (Spec. i-fi-f 113 and 117) and gives
as one example an activity in which a user is active at a particular location
("active at station X") (Spec. ,-r 63). Accordingly, we agree with the
Examiner that Klein teaches redirecting a call to another device based on
current activity status of a user. See Ans. 4--5; Final Act. 4--5.
Appellants attempt to distinguish each reference individually, rather
than addressing the combined teachings of the references. See App. Br. 6-8.
Each reference, however, must be read, not in isolation, but for what it fairly
teaches in combination with the prior art as a whole. See In re Keller, 642
F.2d 413, 425 (CCPA 1981) ("The test for obviousness is not ... that the
claimed invention must be expressly suggested in any one or all of the
references. Rather, the test is what the combined teachings of the references
would have suggested to those of ordinary skill in the art."). In KSR, the
Supreme Court criticized a rigid approach to determining obviousness based
on the disclosures of individual prior art references, with little recourse to
the knowledge, creativity, and common sense that a skilled artisan would
have brought to bear when considering combinations or modifications. See
KSR Int'! Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 415--422 (2007); see also
Randall Mfg. v. Rea, 733 F.3d 1355, 1362 (Fed. Cir. 2013). Here, we agree
with the Examiner's reasoning set forth in pages 3-6 and 43--48 of the
Examiner's Answer that a person of ordinary skill in the art would have been
motivated to combine Klein's teaching of call routing based on user activity
and Agrawal' s teachings of periodic polling of device status and call routing
based on user location to arrive at a method and system that dynamically
transfers an in-progress communications session from a first destination
6
Appeal2014-002781
Application 11/502,570
device to a second destination device based on a combination of current
location and current activity status of a particular entity. See Ans. 3---6 and
43--48; see also Final Act. 2-5 and 39--41. Appellants fail to persuasively
explain how the Examiner's analysis of the combined teachings of two
references that disclose dynamic call routing is erroneous.
We therefore sustain the Examiner's obviousness rejection of
independent claims 1, 11, 28, and 50 based on Agrawal and Klein.
Appellants do not separately address the limitations added by dependent
claims 2-10, 12-27, and 29--49, and rely exclusively on their arguments for
the independent claims. See App. Br. 8. For the reasons explained above
with respect to the independent claims, Appellants' arguments are
unpersuasive, and we sustain the Examiner's rejections of claims 2-10, 12-
27, and 29--49.
DECISION
We affirm the Examiner's rejection of claims 1-50 under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a) as being obvious in view of Agrawal and Klein.
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
kme
7