Ex Parte Javaregowda et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Aug 31, 2017

13901450 (P.T.A.B. Aug. 31, 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.
13/901,450 05/23/2013 Gowtham Javaregowda 20130148 9832
7590 09/05/201725537
VERIZON
PATENT MANAGEMENT GROUP
1320 North Court House Road
9th Floor
ARLINGTON, VA 22201-2909
EXAMINER
POPE, KHAR YE
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2652
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
09/05/2017 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):
patents @ verizon.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte GOWTHAM JAVAREGOWDA, RAFAEL A. GAVIRIA VELEZ,
and REZWANUL AZIM
Appeal 20170029991’2
Application 13/901,450
Technology Center 2400
Before: JAMES R. HUGHES, JOHN P. PINKERTON, and
JOYCE CRAIG, Administrative Patent Judges.
HUGHES, 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—20, which constitute all the claims
1 According to the Appellants, Verizon Communications Inc. is the real
party in interest. App. Br. 2.
2 The application on appeal has an effective filing date of May 23, 2013,
and has no parent applications. Therefore, the Leahy-Smith America
Invents Act (AIA) amendments to the U.S. Code (§§ 102, 103) are
applicable. See MPEP § 2159.02: “AIA 35 U.S.C. [§§] 102 and 103 took
effect on March 16,2013. AIA 35 U.S.C.[§§] 102 and 103 apply to any
patent application that contains or contained at any time a claim to a claimed
invention that has an effective filing date that is on or after March 16, 2013.”
Appeal 2017-002999
Application 13/901,450
pending in this application. Final Act. 1—2; see also Reply Br. 3.3 We have
jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We reverse.
Appellants ’ Invention
The invention generally concerns devices and methods for
communicating presence and wait time information in a communication
system, including providing presence information that includes wait time
information (an estimated time to wait before reaching a human operator) to
a user device that displays a contact list including the contact of interest (a
call center) and the provided presence information. The method also
generates an audible or visual alert when the wait time decreases to a user
configurable value. Spec. 45, 48, 67, and 69, Abstract.
Representative Claim
Independent claim 1, reproduced below with key disputed limitations
emphasized, further illustrates the invention:
1. A method comprising:
receiving, by one or more devices that implement a
presence server, presence information relating to a state of a
voice line associated with a call center, the presence information
including'.
a wait time associated with the voice line, the wait
time corresponding to an estimated time that a caller to the voice
line will wait before reaching a human operator; and
3 We refer to Appellants’ Specification (“Spec.”) filed May 23, 2013,
Appeal Brief (“App. Br.”) filed Jan. 1, 2016, and Reply Brief (“Reply Br.”)
filed Dec. 19, 2016. We also refer to the Examiner’s Answer (“Ans.”)
mailed Oct. 20, 2016, and Final Office Action (Final Rejection) (“Final
Act.”) mailed Aug. 26, 2015.
2
Appeal 2017-002999
Application 13/901,450
providing, by the one or more devices and to a user device
that displays a contact list that includes an entry for an entity
associated with the call center, the presence information for
display as part of the entry for the entity in the contact list, and
for generating an audible or visual alert that is triggered when
the wait time, associated with the voice line, decreases to a user
configurable value, the presence information being provided
independently of the user device communicating with the call
center.
Rejections on Appeal
1. The Examiner rejects claims 1—5, 7, 8, 10—16, 19, and 20 under
35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Christensen (US 2005/0187781
Al, published Aug. 25, 2005) and Williams et al. (US 2012/0288075 Al,
published Nov. 15, 2012) (“Williams”).
2. The Examiner rejects claim 6 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being
unpatentable over Christensen, Williams, and Gonzalez et al. (US
2011/0281551 Al, published Nov. 17, 2011) (“Gonzalez”).
3. The Examiner rejects claim 9 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being
unpatentable over Christensen, Williams, and Spence et al. (US
2013/0244632 Al, published Sept. 19, 2013) (“Spence”).
4. The Examiner rejects claims 17 and 18 under 35 U.S.C. § 103
as being unpatentable over Christensen, Williams, and Jachner (US
2010/0257453 Al, published Oct. 7, 2010).
ISSUE
Based upon our review of the record, Appellants’ contentions, and the
Examiner’s findings and conclusions, the issue before us follows:
Did the Examiner err in finding that Christensen and Williams
collectively would have taught or suggested
3
Appeal 2017-002999
Application 13/901,450
providing [and displaying] a contact list that includes an
entry for an entity associated with the call center [and] the
presence information [including a wait time] and[ ] generating
an audible or visual alert that is triggered when the wait time,
associated with the voice line, decreases to a user configurable
value
(claim 1) within the meaning of Appellants’ claim 1 and the commensurate
limitations of claims 10 and 16?
ANALYSIS
The Examiner rejects independent claim 1 as obvious in view of
Christensen and Williams. See Final Act. 2—5; see also Ans. 2-4.
Appellants contend Christensen and Williams do not teach the disputed
features of claim 1. App. Br. 6—12; see also Reply Br. 3—6. Specifically,
Appellants contend that Christensen and Williams do not teach a user-
configurable threshold and generating an alert triggered when a wait time
decreases below the threshold. See App. Br. 7—12; see also Reply Br. 3—6.
In particular, Appellants contend the Examiner cited portions of Williams
describe scheduling a specific call back time and “scheduling of a call back
... to contact an agent does not disclose or suggest... a wait time
associated with a voice line, and an audible or visual alert that is triggered
when the wait time, associated with the voice line, decreases to a user
configurable value.” App. Br. 9—10. The Examiner finds that Christensen
describes a buddy list (contact list) including presence information and an
interactive messaging system that sends instant messages including wait
times. See Ans. 2-4 (citing Christensen || 45, 53, 56, 67, 68, and 110). The
Examiner further finds that Williams describes a scheduled time (call back
4
Appeal 2017-002999
Application 13/901,450
time) selected by a user — which is a user-configurable value. See Ans. 3
(citing Williams 171).
We agree with Appellants, and disagree with the Examiner, that
Christensen and Williams describe (1) displaying a contact list including a
contact entry, associated presence information for the contact and wait time
information (included in the presence information); and (2) generating an
audible or visual alert triggered when the wait time decreases to (below) a
user configurable value. At best, Chistensen describes a presence server
providing presence information including the wait time of a contact center
(call center) contact (Chistensen H 45 46) and sending an instant message,
including the wait time information (see id. 156). Williams describes, in
separate embodiments, various display devices (set-top box and video
display, kiosks) that display a wait time and sending a wait time to a mobile
device. Williams H 48, 58. A message including contact information and a
wait time is not a contact list. Although Christensen generally describes a
buddy list or contact list, it does not describe displaying the presence
information and wait time in the contact list. Christensen 1 53. Rather, it
describes sending a message to a user with the wait time. Similarly,
Williams describes displaying a message including a wait time. Neither
reference describes displaying a contact list including a contact entry with
associated presence information and wait time information. Further, the
presence information in both Christiansen and Williams is provided by the
call center in response to a user query, in direct contravention of the
requirement in claim 1 that the “presence information be[ ]provided
independently of the user device communicating with the call center.”
Additionally, neither reference discloses or fairly suggests the recited user-
5
Appeal 2017-002999
Application 13/901,450
configurable alert. Williams describes scheduling a call back, but this call
back does not allow a user to configure a threshold. Williams Tflf 70-71.
Consequently, we are constrained by the record before us to find that
the Examiner erred in finding that the combination of Christensen and
Williams teaches the disputed limitations of Appellants’ claim 1.
Independent claims 10 and 16 include limitations of commensurate scope.
Dependent claims 2—9, 11—15, and 17—20 depend on claims 1, 10, and 16,
respectively. Accordingly, we do not sustain the Examiner’s obviousness
rejections of claims 1—20.
CONCLUSIONS
Appellants have shown the Examiner erred in rejecting claims 1—20
under 35 U.S.C. § 103.
DECISION
We reverse the Examiner’s rejections of claims 1—20.
REVERSED
6