Ex Parte Kumar et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

May 19, 2016

13035033 (P.T.A.B. May. 19, 2016)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE
13/035,033 02/25/2011
89885 7590 05/19/2016
FERENCE & ASSOCIATES LLC
409 BROAD STREET
PITTSBURGH, PA 15143
FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
ArunKumar
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.
IN920110007US 1(790.109) 2003
EXAMINER
POPE, KHARYE
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2652
MAILDATE DELIVERY MODE
05/19/2016 PAPER
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.
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Exparte ARUNKUMAR and SHEETAL K. AGARWAL
Appeal2014-005865
Application 13/035,033
Technology Center 2600
Before ROBERT E. NAPPI, NATHAN A. ENGELS, and
JOHN D. HAMANN, Administrative Patent Judges.
PERCURIAM
DECISION ON APPEAL
This is a decision on appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) of the Final
Rejection of claims 1 through 25.
We affirm.
INVENTION
The invention is directed to a method for according multiple input
media to a voice-based application. See Abstract of Appellants'
Specification. Claim 1 is illustrative of the invention and reproduced below:
Appeal2014-005865
Application 13/035,033
1. A method comprising:
accessing a voice application, the voice application
including a voice-driven application platform and a plurality of
voice-driven application sites;
selecting a voice application template which supports a
voice input mode;
selecting at least one voice application template which
supports at least one input mode other than voice and telephone
touch tone; and
according a capability to selectively access the voice
application via the voice input mode and the at least one input
mode other than voice and telephone touch tone.
REJECTIONS AT ISSUE
The Examiner has rejected claims 1 through 13, and 15 through 24
under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Imielinski et al. (US
6,240,448 Bl; iss. May 29, 2001) and Liu et al. (US 2012/0093054 Al; pub.
Apr. 19, 2012). Final Action 2-9. 1
The Examiner has rejected claims 14 and 25 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a)
as being unpatentable over Imielinski et al., Liu et al. and Backholm et al.
(US 2012/0023190 Al; pub. Jan. 26, 2012). Final Action 9-11.
ANALYSIS
Appellants' argue that Imielinski et al. and Liu et al. do not teach a
voice application including a voice-driven application platform and a
plurality of voice-driven application sites as recited in representative claim
1. App. Br. 16-18. Specifically, Appellants argue that Liu et al. teaches a
1 Throughout this opinion, we refer to the Appeal Brief filed October 23,
2013, Final Office Action mailed May 30, 2013 and the Examiner's Answer
mailed February 4, 2014.
2
Appeal2014-005865
Application 13/035,033
voicemail system which is different, and further Appellants argue that
because Imielinski is based upon a PCT filed in 1995 it is "highly
rudimentary and limited when compared to the much more advanced
capabilities of a voice application as broadly claimed." App Br. 16-17.
The Examiner provides a comprehensive response to Appellants' arguments,
finding that both Imielinski et al. and Liu et al. teach a voice application,
including voice-driven applications as claimed. Answer 2-3. We have
reviewed the Examiner's findings, the documents relied upon by the
Examiner to support these findings and we concur with the Examiner.
Accordingly, we sustain the Examiner's rejection of claim 1 and claims 15
and 16, which are grouped with claim 1.
Appellants have not presented separate arguments with respect to
dependent claims 2 through 14 and 1 7 through 25. With respect to
dependent claim 13, Appellants have merely recited a limitation of the
claim, asserting that it is not taught by the reference without addressing the
Examiner's findings. Such statements are not separate arguments. See 37
C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(iv) ("A statement which merely points out what a claim
recites will not be considered an argument for separate patentability of the
claim."); see also In re Lovin, 652 F.3d 1349, 1357 (Fed. Cir. 2011) ("[W]e
hold that the Board reasonably interpreted Rule 41.37 to require more
substantive arguments in an appeal brief than a mere recitation of the claim
elements and a naked assertion that the corresponding elements were not
found in the prior art."). Thus, we are not presented with additional issues
with respect to claims 2 through 14 and 17 through 25, and we sustain the
rejection of these claims for the same reasons as discussed with respect to
claim 1.
3
Appeal2014-005865
Application 13/035,033
DECISION
For the above reasons, the Examiner's rejections of claims 1 through
25 are 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
4