Ex Parte Klemm et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Jul 26, 2017

13591049 (P.T.A.B. Jul. 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.
13/591,049 08/21/2012 Reinhard P. Klemm 4366CSM-236 1067
48500 7590
SHERIDAN ROSS P.C.
1560 BROADWAY, SUITE 1200
DENVER, CO 80202
EXAMINER
WHIPPLE, BRIAN P
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2454
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
07/28/2017 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):
cjacquet@ sheridanross.com
pair_Avay a @ 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 REINHARD P. KLEMM
and
DOREE DUNCAN SELIGMANN1
Appeal 2016-004325
Application 13/591,049
Technology Center 2400
Before CARLA M. KRIVAK, AMBER L. HAGY, and
PHILLIP A. BENNETT, Administrative Patent Judges.
KRIVAK, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
Appellants appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Final Rejection
of claims 1—20. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We affirm.
1 Appellants identify Avaya Inc. as the real party in interest (App. Br. 2).
Appeal 2016-004325
Application 13/591,049
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Appellants’ invention is directed to:
A server executing a context aware social callback
application and method are provided. Posts with action tags
made on social media sites or pages that identify a monitoring
entity or associated offering are identified. Such posts are
analyzed to determine whether they are associated with an
identifiable user, and whether they invite interaction.
(Abstract.)
Independent claim 1, reproduced below, is exemplary of the subject
matter on appeal.
1. A communication system, comprising:
a resource communication endpoint;
a communication server;
a context aware social callback application;
wherein the communication server is operable to, at least,
access a social media resource operable to at least one of host or
provide posts;
wherein the context aware social callback application, via
the communication server, operates to at least one of receive or
identify a post with an action tag identifying a first entity,
determine whether a source of the post identifying the first
entity is an identifiable human person rather than a group of
people, a company, an institution, an anonymous user, or other
non-identifiable source, and in response to determining the
source is a human person, is further operable to:
generate a response to the post;
route the response, via the communication server, to the
resource communication endpoint; and
cause the resource communication endpoint to present
the routed response to an agent for processing.
2
Appeal 2016-004325
Application 13/591,049
REFERENCES and REJECTION
The Examiner rejected claims 1—20 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) based
upon the teachings of Erhart (US 2012/0011208 Al; Jan. 12, 2012) and
Erhart (US 2011/0125826 Al; May 26, 2011) (hereinafter “Erhart 2”).
ANALYSIS
The Examiner finds Erhart discloses all the limitations of independent
claims 1, 7, and 14 except for determining “whether a source of the post
identifying the first entity is an identifiable human person rather than a
group of people, a company, an institution, an anonymous user, or other
non-identifiable source” as claimed (Final Act. 4; Ans. 4—5). The Examiner
relies on Erhart 2 for disclosing this limitation—“[0060], In. 9-11; [0061], In.
6-9, wherein the human person ‘Bill Smith’ is identified as linked to the user
name ‘Big Dog 26’ used in a social media message” {id.).
Appellants contend Erhart 2 determines an actual name associated
with a “user name”; whereas the invention is directed to determining the
identification of a source of a post as a human and not an entity such as “a
group of people, a company, an institution, an anonymous user, or other
non-identifiable source,” as claimed (App. Br. 6).2 That is, Erhart 2 teaches
determining the actual user name (Tfl[ 60-61). We do not agree.
The Examiner finds,
Erhart 2 discloses “stalking social media users” (Title) through
“receiv[ing] an identity for a user and associate[ing] the user
identity with one or more other identities, such as, a screen
name, an email, or some other identity that may be used on
2 We refer to the corrected Appeal Brief filed September 17, 2015,
throughout this Opinion.
3
Appeal 2016-004325
Application 13/591,049
social media networks” (Abstract, In. 3-6) in order for a
“content center [to be] able to engage the customer in near real
time or real time communications over the social media
network” (Abstract, In. 12-15); all of which suggest the
“customer” is an identifiable human user rather than an entity
such as a company named Bill Smith Inc.
(Ans. 7—8 (alteration in original).) Thus, we agree with the Examiner that
Erhart 2 teaches or at least suggests determining if the user/poster is human.
The claim “determine [s] whether a source of the post identifying the first
entity is an identifiable human person” and if so, a routed response is sent to
an agent for processing. Erhart 2’s paragraph 60 discloses determining “the
identity of the user” and paragraph 61 discloses once “the identity of the user
is determined” a “text processing component 214 can search a message
history database” to determine an actual name. Additionally, paragraph 62,
although not cited by the Examiner, discloses “[a]fter the possible identities
of the user are determined, the text processing component 214 may then
search one or more dialog data structures ... for the identities” and a text
processing component analyzes one or more “input segments to locate a user
name that is the same as the identity extracted from the social media
message.” This is similar to Appellants’ Specification, paragraph 29, which
states,
If it is determined that the post with the action tag
identifies the entity, a determination can next be made as to
whether the post was made by an identifiable user. ... A user
128 is an identifiable user 128 when the user 128 making the
post with the action tag can be uniquely identified. The unique
identification of the user 128 can include a user name, real
name, or other unique identifier that is associated with the post
with the action tag.
4
Appeal 2016-004325
Application 13/591,049
As the Examiner finds, Appellants’ Specification also discloses determining
a user name or a real name that identifies a human (Ans. 10).
Further, as Appellants concede, “a unique identifier [in Erhart 2] may
or may not be the real name of an actual human being” (Reply Br. 5).
Therefore, an ordinarily skilled artisan would know that if a unique identifier
does not identify an actual human being, then it must be someone other than
an actual human being, such as “group of people, a company, an institution,
an anonymous user, or other non-identifiable source” and the associated post
will not be “stalked.”
As independent claims 1 and 14 include this limitation and are argued
for the same reasons (App. Br. 7), we sustain the Examiner’s rejection of
claims 1 and 14, and claims 2, 3, 5, 6, and 15—20, not separately argued.
With respect to independent claim 7, Appellants contend the cited
references do not teach the step of “determining by the first system node”
{id.). However, as the Examiner finds, Appellants simply allege the cited
references do not teach this limitation without providing any argument or
reasoning (Ans. 11). The Examiner further explains Erhart 2 discloses a
dialog system and a dialog core, both nodes {id.). This is consistent with
Appellants’ Specification, paragraph 13, which merely states components
are synonymous with nodes, and does not discuss “a first system node.”
Appellants’ Reply Brief again asserts, without persuasive argument or
reasoning, that the cited art does not teach “a first system node” (Reply Br.
5).
Thus, we sustain the Examiner’s rejection of independent claim 7 and
dependent claims 8—13, not separately argued.
5
Appeal 2016-004325
Application 13/591,049
With respect to dependent claim 4, Appellants assert Erhart 2
discloses “identifying information” but does not disclose “context
information” as claimed, which is different from context information,
without providing persuasive argument or reasoning as to how or why they
are different (App. Br. 7).
The Examiner finds, and we agree, Erhart 2 discloses a user’s location
and ties this to a physical address or phone number via presence information,
which is considered context information (Ans. 13 (citing Erhart 2 || 9 and
65)). Appellants provide no additional argument in the Reply Brief
regarding this finding. Thus, we sustain the Examiner’s rejection of
dependent claim 4.
DECISION
The Examiner’s decision rejecting claims 1—20 is affirmed.
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
6