Ex Parte Kondziela

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Oct 31, 2014

12333608 (P.T.A.B. Oct. 31, 2014)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
____________________

BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
____________________

Ex parte JAMES MARK KONDZIELA

____________________

Appeal 2012-007522
Application 12/333,608
Technology Center 2100
____________________

Before ROBERT E. NAPPI, ELENI MANTIS MERCADER, and
DANIEL J. GALLIGAN, Administrative Patent Judges.

GALLIGAN, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL
Appellant1 seeks our review under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) of the
Examiner’s rejection of claims 1–20. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C.
§ 6(b).
We AFFIRM.2

1 The Appeal Brief identifies Verizon Communications, Inc., and subsidiary
companies, including Verizon Business Global, LLC (formerly MCI, LLC)
and Cellco Partnership (doing business as Verizon Wireless, and which
includes as a minority partner affiliates of Vodafone Group Plc), as the real
parties in interest. App. Br. 1.
2 Our decision refers to Appellant’s Appeal Brief filed on October 6, 2011
(“App. Br.”); Appellant’s Reply Brief filed April 5, 2012 (“Reply Br.”);
Appeal 2012-007522
Application 12/333,608

2

STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Claims on Appeal
Appellant’s application relates to customer service user interfaces.
Spec. ¶¶ 1, 18. Claims 1 and 11 are independent claims. Claim 1 is
reproduced below (disputed limitations in italics):
1. A computer implemented method, comprising:
displaying a main user interface to a customer service
representative in response to the customer service
representative receiving a call from a customer, wherein the
main user interface comprises a listing of at least one customer
goal;
receiving a first selection from the listing, wherein the
first selection is selected by the customer service representative
as determined from a first query from the customer;
generating at least one subsequent user interface in
response to the first selection, wherein the at least one
subsequent user interface comprises at least a first series of
steps for the customer service representative to follow to
address the first query;
receiving at least one input from the customer service
representative, the at least one input being entered into the at
least one subsequent user interface;
displaying a recommended selection of one or more
customer goals on the main user interface, wherein the
recommended selection is selected by the customer service
representative and differs from the first selection;
receiving a second selection of one or more customer
goals based upon the recommended selection;
generating one or more subsequent user interfaces in
response to the second selection, wherein the one or more

Examiner’s Answer mailed February 7, 2012 (“Ans.”); and original
Specification filed December 12, 2008 (“Spec.”).
Appeal 2012-007522
Application 12/333,608

3

subsequent user interfaces comprises at least a second series of
steps for the customer service representative to follow to
address recommended selection;
receiving one or more inputs into the one or more
subsequent user interfaces; and
displaying the main user interface in response to
receiving the one or more inputs.

Examiner’s Rejections
Claims 1–19 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) as being
anticipated by Strickland.3 Ans. 4–9.
Claim 20 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Strickland in view of Official Notice. Ans. 9–10.

ANALYSIS
Rejection of Claims 1–10 under § 102(b)
Appellant contends that Strickland does not disclose the limitations of
claim 1 reciting “displaying a recommended selection of one or more
customer goals on the main user interface, wherein the recommended
selection is selected by the customer service representative and differs from
the first selection,” “receiving a second selection of one or more customer
goals based upon the recommended selection,” and “receiving one or more
inputs into the one or more subsequent user interfaces.” App. Br. 5–11.
Appellant argues that the Examiner’s rejection is inconsistent because the
Examiner relied on Strickland’s Troubleshoot function for the “main user
interface” and the EPSS function for the “at least one subsequent user
interface” for one part of the claim and then relied on the EPSS function for

3 Strickland et al., U.S. Patent 5,956,024, issued Sept. 21, 1999.
Appeal 2012-007522
Application 12/333,608

4

the “main user interface” in another part of the claim. App. Br. 5–6.
Appellant also argues that Strickland does not disclose user interaction as
part of a subsequent interface in the EPSS. App. Br. 10–11.
In response, the Examiner found that Strickland discloses a system
with a plurality of user interfaces. Ans. 10–11 (citing Strickland, Figs. 1, 3,
col. 3, ll. 5–53). The Examiner found that a screen display with a main
window and additional display areas such as fields 7, 8, and 14 in Figure 3
discloses a “main user interface” and “at least one subsequent user
interface.” Ans. 11. The Examiner further found that when data is retrieved
and displayed, it alters the state of the display area, and, therefore, the
altered display area discloses a “subsequent user interface.” Ans. 11. The
Examiner still further found that Strickland discloses receiving inputs into
subsequent user interfaces. Ans. 13–14. For example, the Examiner found
Strickland discloses a “first selection” when the customer requests a new
service option. Ans. 13 (citing Strickland, col. 5, ll. 1–5). The Examiner
found Strickland discloses a second selection where the new service requires
a scheduled installation. Ans. 13 (citing Strickland, col. 6, ll. 28–34). The
Examiner further found Strickland discloses an additional input into a
subsequent user interface—entering a date when the new service is desired.
Ans. 13. The Examiner found that Strickland discloses a system with many
user interfaces that receive inputs related to customer goals. Ans. 13–14
(citing Strickland, cols. 5–6).
The Examiner’s findings with respect to the user interfaces of
Strickland are consistent with the description of user interface displays in
Appellant’s Specification. For example, the Specification discloses that “UI
400 may represent the initial menu . . .” that a customer service
Appeal 2012-007522
Application 12/333,608

5

representative receives when starting a call. Spec. ¶ 63. This user interface
“may contain various information fields,” such as name and phone number
of the customer. Spec. ¶ 63. The customer service representative can
activate a customer goals drop down menu. Spec. ¶ 63. The Specification
then discloses: “At least a portion of the UI 400 may remain at the top of the
display during all subsequent UI selections.” Spec. ¶ 63. Therefore, the
Specification describes that a subsequent user interface can be generated by
altering information on the main user interface. We find that the evidence of
record supports the Examiner’s findings consistent with Appellant’s
Specification, and, as such, we are not persuaded by Appellant’s arguments.
Appellant also argues that Strickland does not disclose a relationship
between the EPSS and Troubleshoot functions of Strickland. App. Br. 7–8;
Reply Br. 2–3. In response, the Examiner found that both the EPSS and the
Troubleshoot modules are implemented on a subscriber account
management (SAM) system and that the EPSS module may present GUI
assistance relating to the Troubleshoot module. Ans. 11–12 (citing
Strickland, col. 9, ll. 30–46). The Examiner further found that the EPSS
module provides a prompt (recommended selection) related to the
Troubleshoot issue, which the user can select to obtain additional detailed
information. Ans. 11–12. Strickland discloses that the EPSS (“embedded
performance support system”) “provides an on-line help function . . . . This
function presents possible CSR dialogue, hints, information, detailed hints,
and training based upon the current task selected.” Strickland, col. 6, ll. 59–
63. Because Strickland discloses that EPSS is based on the current task
selected, there is a relationship with Troubleshooting if that is the current
task selected.
Appeal 2012-007522
Application 12/333,608

6

Appellant further argues “the EPSS is not directed to a customer goal
or a recommended selection of customer goals.” App. Br. 8. The Examiner
found that Strickland is directed to customer goals, such as purchasing
telecom services. Ans. 12. In reply, Appellant attempts to distinguish
Strickland from claim 1 by arguing that “the ‘recommended selection of one
or more customer goals’ may refer to offering a customer a package
containing items the customer does not currently have.” Reply Br. 5
(emphasis removed). We are not persuaded by this argument because
Strickland discloses this functionality:
Embedded support tools, such as an advisor panel and a
marketing banner on a CSW screen, allow the CSR to market
various services of interest to the current customer. To use this
function, the CSR inputs a new service option, and the screen
calculates and displays totals for the new services selected.
Strickland, col. 5, ll. 1–6. See also, col. 5, ll. 19–25 (“Promotions and
Packages”).
Based on the foregoing and the evidence of record, we are not
persuaded by Appellant’s arguments. Therefore, we sustain the rejection of
claim 1 under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b).
Appellant does not put forth additional persuasive arguments for
patentability of dependent claims 2–10. See 37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(1)(vii)
(2010) (“A statement which merely points out what a claim recites will not
be considered an argument for separate patentability of the claim.”). As
such, the rejection of these claims also is sustained.

Appeal 2012-007522
Application 12/333,608

7

Rejection of Claims 11–19 under § 102(b)
Appellant contends that Strickland does not disclose the limitation of
claim 11 reciting “the selection being made by a customer service
representative in response to a first query from a customer.” App. Br. 14.
Appellant argues that the EPSS function of Strickland provides help tools
specific to the customer service representative so that a selection made by
the customer service representative is not in response to a first query from a
customer. App. Br. 14. In response, the Examiner found Strickland
discloses such a selection when a customer requests a new service option (“a
first query”). Ans. 17 (citing Strickland, col. 5, ll. 1–5). The Examiner
further found Strickland discloses inputting account information for a new
customer. Ans. 17 (citing Strickland, col. 5, ll. 33–36).
We find the evidence of record supports the Examiner’s findings that
Strickland discloses the limitation of claim 11 reciting “the selection being
made by a customer service representative in response to a first query from a
customer.” As such, we are not persuaded by Appellant’s arguments.
Appellant also contends that Strickland does not disclose the
limitation of claim 11 reciting “a recommendation module communicatively
coupled to the server side for providing recommended selections to the
customer service representative, wherein the one or more user interfaces are
altered in response to the received inputs from the server side.”4 App. Br.

4 Should there be further prosecution of this application (including any
review for allowance), the Examiner may wish to determine if claim 11
complies with 35 U.S.C. § 112 ¶¶ 1, 2. The “wherein” clause recites “in
response to the received inputs from the server side.” However, a previous
limitation of claim 11 indicates that the inputs are received at the client side
and sent to the server side (“the server side . . . for receiving inputs from the
Appeal 2012-007522
Application 12/333,608

8

15. Appellant argues that Strickland’s disclosure of the EPSS calling up a
specific topic does not disclose this limitation. App. Br. 15–16. In response,
the Examiner found Strickland discloses obtaining information from a
database, such as through a credit check, and altering the user interface
presented to the customer service representative by displaying the
information retrieved. Ans. 17–18 (citing Strickland, col. 5, ll. 38–45).
We find that the evidence of record supports the Examiner’s findings
that Strickland discloses the limitation of claim 11 reciting “a
recommendation module communicatively coupled to the server side for
providing recommended selections to the customer service representative,
wherein the one or more user interfaces are altered in response to the
received inputs from the server side,” and, therefore, we are not persuaded of
error.
Based on the foregoing, we sustain the rejection of claim 11 under
35 U.S.C. § 102(b).
Appellant does not put forth additional persuasive arguments for
patentability of dependent claims 12–19. See 37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(1)(vii)
(2010). As such, the rejection of these claims also is sustained.

client side, for processing the received inputs, and for transmitting responses
to the client side”). The Specification also indicates that the client side
receives inputs. See, e.g., Spec. ¶ 22 (“At a minimum, the client side 114
may provide the CSR with a display and at least one entry device to
facilitate entry of information into the UIs in accordance with an exemplary
embodiment.”). Based on the claim and the Specification, it is unclear what
inputs are received from the server side.
Appeal 2012-007522
Application 12/333,608

9

Rejection of Claim 20 under § 103(a)
Claim 20 recites:
The system of claim 11, further comprising:
one or more portable electronic devices communicatively
coupled to the server side, the one or more portable electronic
devices comprise one or processors5 and a display for
displaying the first user interface and the one or more
subsequent user interfaces for receiving inputs from the
customer service representative, for transmitting the receiving
inputs to the server side, and for receiving and displaying
transmitted responses from the server side,
wherein the one or more portable electronic devices
comprise at least a cellular phone and a personal digital
assistant.

The Examiner took Official Notice that “it would have been widely-
known to one of ordinary skill in the art to utilize a cellular phone and/or a
personal digital assistant in a computer environment.” Ans. 20. The
Examiner further cited Kotzin6 in support of the Officially Noticed fact of
cellular phones being used in a WAN environment. Ans. 20–21.
Appellant argues that the Examiner did not address the limitation of
the claim reciting “a display for displaying the first user interface and the
one or more subsequent user interfaces for receiving inputs from the
customer service representative.” App. Br. 18–19; Reply Br. 6–7. We do
not agree. The Examiner rejected claim 20 in view of Official Notice
supported by prior art disclosing subscriber devices, such as cellular phones.
Ans. 21 (citing Kotzin). Kotzin teaches that the subscriber device has a

5 This should probably recite “one or more processors.”
6 Kotzin, U.S. Patent 7,653,413 B2, issued Jan. 26, 2010.
Appeal 2012-007522
Application 12/333,608

10

display, keys, and a graphical user interface. Kotzin, col. 2, ll. 44–50, Fig. 1.
Therefore, the evidence of record supports the Examiner’s rejection.
Appellant further argues that, because Strickland discloses using a
wired network, it teaches away from Kotzin, which discloses using a
wireless network. App. Br. 19. Based on the Examiner’s findings with
respect to Kotzin (Ans. 21), we do not find this argument persuasive.
Appellant still further argues that the Examiner failed to provide a
proper reason for modifying Strickland. App. Br. 19; Reply Br. 7. The
Examiner concluded that “it would have been obvious to one of ordinary
skill in the art to obtain the predictable result of the instant invention by
utilizing a cellular phone and/or a personal digital assistant in lieu of a
desktop PC.” Ans. 9–10. This rationale suffices as an articulated reason
with some rational underpinning to establish a conclusion of obviousness,
and, therefore, we are not persuaded of error.
Based on the foregoing, we sustain the rejection of claim 20 under
35 U.S.C. § 103(a).

DECISION
We affirm the Examiner’s rejection of claims 1–20.
No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with
this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a)(1)(iv).

AFFIRMED

msc