Ex Parte Lok et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

May 24, 2016

10435686 (P.T.A.B. May. 24, 2016)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE
10/435,686 0510912003
27367 7590 05/25/2016
WESTMAN CHAMPLIN & KOEHLER, P.A.
SUITE 1400
900 SECOND A VENUE SOUTH
MINNEAPOLIS, MN 55402
FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
Shek Hung Lok
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.
L95.12-0001 8951
EXAMINER
HENDERSON, ESTHER BENOIT
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2458
MAILDATE DELIVERY MODE
05/25/2016 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
Ex parte SHEK HUNG LOK and RA VIN DIMANTHA
Appeal2014-009393
Application 10/435,686
Technology Center 2400
Before CATHERINE SHIANG, JEFFREY A. STEPHENS, and
SCOTT B. HOWARD, Administrative Patent Judges.
SHIANG, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
Appellants appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Examiner's final
rejection of claims 10-15, which are all the claims pending in the
application. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b ). We reverse.
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Introduction
The present invention relates to providing web and portal enablement
of a call center. See generally Spec. 1. Claim 10 is exemplary:
Appeal2014-009393
Application 10/435,686
10. A system comprising:
a physical device performing asynchronous messaging
operations on Computer Telephony Integration (CTI) event
messages and Customer Relationship Management ( CRM) data
messages such that CTI event messages are given a higher
priority than CRM data messages.
References and Rejections
Claims 10-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 102(e) as being
anticipated by Kaltenmark (US 7 ,068,680 B 1, June 27, 2006).
ANALYSIS
The Anticipation Rejection
We have reviewed Appellants' arguments in the Briefs, the
Examiner's rejection, the Examiner's response to Appellants' arguments,
and the evidence of record. We concur with Appellants' conclusion that the
Examiner erred in finding Kaltenmark discloses "a physical device
performing asynchronous messaging operations on Computer Telephony
Integration (CTI) event messages and Customer Relationship Management
(CRM) data messages such that CTI event messages are given a higher
priority than CRM data messages," as recited in independent claim 10
(emphasis added).
The Examiner initially finds:
such that CTI event messages are given a higher priority than
CRM data messages (Col. 21, lines 4-13 and 53-67, where
traffic is prioritized based on traffic type; event messages relate
to voice/video and data messages relate to data/emails; video
requires on-time delivery whereas data are not required to be
on-time which would place video traffic in a higher priority
than emails).
2
Appeal2014-009393
Application 10/435,686
Final Act. 3.
Appellants argue CTI event messages are messages relating to a CTI
event, and the cited Kaltenmark portions do not mention CTI event
messages. See App. Br. 4---6. 1
In response, the Examiner finds:
Figure 11 and Col. 11, line 64 to Col. 12, line 32 of the
Kaltenmark reference. In the stated Figure and sections,
Kaltenmark discloses conducting telecommunication messaging
between a client and CTI server using a telephony network.
Video conferencing is well known in the art at the time of
invention to relate to a teleconferencing session which requires
the use of a telephone and computer network as defined by the
standard IEEE terms dictionary for videoconferencing and
teleconferencing. Therefore, video conferencing messages are
inherently encompassed in Kaltenmark's CTI environment.
Ans. 4.
Inherency can only be established when "prior art necessarily
functions in accordance with, or includes, the claimed limitations." In re
Cruciferous Sprout Litig., 301 F.3d 1343, 1349 (Fed. Cir. 2002). We agree
with Appellants that the Examiner has not provided any evidence to
establish "video conferencing messages are inherently encompassed in
Kaltenmark's CTI environment." See Reply Br. 2. Because the Examiner
has not shown messages associated with video-conferencing sessions
constitute the claimed CTI event messages, the Examiner fails to show the
cited Kaltenmark portions disclose "CTI event messages are given a higher
priority than CRM data messages," as required by claim 10.
1 Appellants raise additional arguments. Because the identified issue is
dispositive of the appeal, we do not reach the additional arguments.
3
Appeal2014-009393
Application 10/435,686
Because the Examiner fails to provide sufficient evidence or
explanation to support the anticipation rejection, we are constrained by the
record to reverse the Examiner's rejection of claim 10, and claims 11-15 for
similar reasons.
DECISION
We reverse the Examiner's decision rejecting claims 10-15.
REVERSED
4