Ex Parte Lawrence et alDownload PDFPatent Trial and Appeal BoardJan 29, 201814795030 (P.T.A.B. Jan. 29, 2018) Copy Citation 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. 14/795,030 07/09/2015 Mark Lawrence BPCCR0029ML_SLG.C1 7154 27939 7590 01/30/2018 Philip H. Burrus, IV Burrus Intellectual Property Law Group LLC 222 12th Street NE Suite 1803 Atlanta, GA 30309 EXAMINER EDWARDS, LINGLAN E ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 2491 MAIL DATE DELIVERY MODE 01/30/2018 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 ____________________ Ex parte MARK LAWRENCE, SANDY DIAZ, PATRICK FALLON, and CYNTHIA HAYDEN ____________________ Appeal 2017-0059861 Application 14/795,030 Technology Center 2400 ____________________ Before JEREMY J. CURCURI, HUNG H. BUI, and ADAM J. PYONIN, Administrative Patent Judges. PYONIN, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL This is a decision on appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from a final rejection of the pending claims.2 We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). We REVERSE. 1 CC Serve Corporation is identified as the real party in interest. App. Br. 2. 2 Claims 1–14 are currently pending as claims 15–20 have been canceled in an amendment filed with the Appeal Brief. See App. Br. 6; Advisory Act. 2. Appeal 2017-005986 Application 14/795,030 2 STATEMENT OF THE CASE Introduction The Application is directed to “a system and method for selectively providing telemarketers with confidential information.” Spec. ¶ 3. Claims 1 and 9 are independent. Claim 1 is reproduced below for reference (emphasis added): 1. A method of managing a telemarketing campaign, the method comprising: receiving, at a work station located at one or more solicitation centers, solicitee responses via a communication link, the solicitee responses comprising responses by solicitees to a solicitation corresponding to a given script template; analyzing, at a processor located at a main office, separated from the one or more solicitation centers by the communication link, the solicitee responses; determining, with the processor, whether to use a second script template to generate pages of a personalized script based at least in part upon the analyzing the solicitee responses; in response to the determining, one of: using, by the processor, the second script template in the generation of the pages of the personalized script, wherein the pages of the personalized script are generated in response to requests received through the communication link; or not using, by the processor, the second script template and instead using a first script template in the generation of the pages of the personalized script, wherein the pages of the personalizes script are generated in response to the requests received through the communication link; and buffering the pages of the personalized script in a memory of the processor, and, Appeal 2017-005986 Application 14/795,030 3 overwriting, by the processor, a page of the personalized script at the work station with a subsequent page of the personalized script, the buffering occurring while the page is being completed at the work station, and the overwriting occurring only after the page has been completed at the workstation. References and Rejections3 The following is the prior art relied upon by the Examiner in rejecting the claims on appeal: Shapiro US 2002/0059283 A1 May 16, 2002 Koeppel US 6,477,575 B1 Nov. 5, 2002 Dow US 2003/0046101 A1 Mar. 6, 2003 Coker US 2005/0086220 A1 Apr. 21, 2005 Ambrose US 2005/0220290 A1 Oct. 6, 2005 (1) Claims 1, 4, 6–10, 13, and 14 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Shapiro, Coker, and Koeppel. Final Act. 8; Ans. 2. (2) Claims 2 and 3 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Shapiro, Coker, Koeppel, and Ambrose. Final Act. 19; Ans. 2. (3) Claims 5, 11, and 12 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Shapiro, Coker, Koeppel, and Dow. Final Act. 20; Ans. 2. 3 The Examiner has withdrawn the double patenting rejection in light of the Terminal Disclaimer filed on October 13, 2016. See Ans. 2. Appeal 2017-005986 Application 14/795,030 4 ANALYSIS Appellants argue the Examiner’s rejection of claim 1 is erroneous, because (1) “Shapiro and Coker teach delivering all pages of a script at once, as evidenced by the cited portions of the references,” (2) “Koppel’s web page presentation results in complete delivery of the content, just as was the case in Shapiro and Coker”, and, as such, (3) “[t]he combination therefore fails to teach Appellant[s’] claimed page by page overwriting, controlled by a processor at a main office, where the pages are overwritten at a solicitation center that is separated and away from the main office.” App. Br. 18. We are persuaded by Appellants’ arguments. Claim 1 recites “overwriting, by the processor, a page of the personalized script at the work station with a subsequent page of the personalized script.” The Examiner finds “overwriting personalized script on a page-by-page basis is clearly disclosed by Coker, at least when a server generates a page and communicates it to the client - it replaces (i.e. overwrites) [a] previously communicated page.” Ans. 11. The Examiner, however, does not identify, nor do we find, where in the record Coker discloses or suggests overwriting a page of a script with a subsequent page of the same script at the solicitation center work station, as required by claim 1. Particularly, Coker discloses the work station can be a thin client with a “desktop area [which] should display one script page at a time,” but that “[t]hese script pages are launched upon script execution.” Coker ¶ 75 (emphasis added). Coker further discloses that “[t]he user interface of the desktop may be such as to insure that important questions and data are always visible to the user” and users are provided a “script path view [which] allows the user to see a list applet of all questions that have been Appeal 2017-005986 Application 14/795,030 5 asked in this script session.” Coker ¶¶ 26, 77. We find Coker’s display of scripts on a thin client does not teach or suggest the particular memory management of script pages (i.e., overwriting a page of a script with a subsequent page of the same script) required by claim 1. Thus, we agree with Appellants that Coker provides “no teaching of an overwriting on a page-by-page basis.” Reply Br. 9. The Examiner does not rely on the other cited references for script page overwriting. See Ans. 9–11. As such, we are persuaded the Examiner erred in finding the cited references teach or suggest the limitations of claim 1, and the limitations similarly recited by independent claim 9. We do not sustain the Examiner’s obviousness rejection of these claims, or the claims dependent thereon. DECISION The Examiner’s decision rejecting claims 1–14 is reversed. REVERSED Copy with citationCopy as parenthetical citation