Ex Parte McBride et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Jan 30, 2013

10705208 (P.T.A.B. Jan. 30, 2013)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
____________

BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD

____________

Ex parte AARON JOSEPH MCBRIDE, ROB RAPPAPORT,
JEREMY ROMERO, CHRISTOPHER BRENNAN, and
ROBERT WILLIAMS
____________

Appeal 2010-009825
Application 10/705,208
Technology Center 2100
____________

Before THU A. DANG, JAMES R. HUGHES, and
GREGORY J. GONSALVES, Administrative Patent Judges.

GONSALVES, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL

Appeal 2010-009825
Application 10/705,208

2
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Appellants appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the rejection of
claims 1, 13-15, 22-35, and 40 (Notice of Appeal, filed on May 13, 2009).
Claims 2-12, 16-21, 36-39, and 41 were canceled (App. Br. 2). We have
jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We affirm.
The Invention
Exemplary Claim 1 follows:
1. A method for maintaining at least one response by
an administrator in a system for autonomously processing
requests, comprising the steps of:

providing a template to the administrator, wherein the
template includes at least one field to elicit information from
the administrator;

receiving information from the administrator into the
template; and

making the information accessible to a rules-based
program for use in providing the at least one response in reply
to a request from a user, wherein the step of making the
information accessible to the rules-based program saves the
information as part of the template into rules, and wherein the
step of saving the information into rules includes the steps of:

retrieving rules,

for each rule retrieved, determining whether the
rule needs information, and

if the rule needs information, retrieving the
information from a corresponding field in the template
and inserting the information into the rule, wherein the
Appeal 2010-009825
Application 10/705,208

3
step of determining whether the rule needs information
includes determining if either a response layer or a logic
layer needs information by identifying the presence of a
signifier in the response layer or the logic layer,
respectively, wherein the signifier is an identifier
configured to call for information such that the call for
information invokes a process to select the information
from a corresponding field in the template so that the
information will be linked to the rule, and wherein the
logic layer is configured to choose between various
responses provided by the administrator, wherein at least
one of the responses is recognized by the logic layer,
wherein the chosen response is the response to be used in
the response layer, and retrieving information indicated
as needed from a corresponding field in the template and
inserting the information into the response layer or the
logic layer, as called for by the signifier.

Claims 1, 13-15, 23, 24, 27-35, and 40 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C.
103(a) as being unpatentable over Chikirivao (U.S. Patent Application
Publication No.: US 2003/0163783A1) and Wallace (RICHARD S. WALLACE,
THE ELEMENTS OF AIML STYLE, 1-86 (ALICE A. I. Foundation, Inc.,2003)
(Ans. 2-17).
Claim 22 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Chikirivao, Wallace, and Jammes (U.S. Patent No.: US
6,484,149 B1) (Ans. 17-18).
Claims 25 and 26 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Chikirivao, Wallace, and Habraken (JOE HABRAKEN,
MICROSOFT OFFICE XP 8-IN-1, Part III: Word - Chapter 2: Working with
Documents (2003)) (Ans. 18-20).

Appeal 2010-009825
Application 10/705,208

4
FACTUAL FINDINGS
We adopt the Examiner’s factual findings as set forth in the Answer
(Ans. 3, et seq.).

ISSUE
Appellants’ responses to the Examiner’s position present the
following issue:
Did the Examiner err in concluding that the combination of Chikirivao
and Wallace teaches or suggests a template, a signifier, and a logic layer as
required by independent claims 1 and 35?

ANALYSIS
Appellants contend that the Examiner erred in rejecting independent
claims 1 and 35 because the combination of Chikirivao and Wallace does
not teach or suggest a template, a signifier, and a logic layer (App. Br. 5-8).
In support of their contention, Appellants first argue that Wallace does not
teach the claimed template and instead, “simply discloses a mark-up
language for inputting knowledge into chatbots” (id. at 5). Appellants
further argue that “an inconsistent reading of the disclosure of the Wallace
publication [by the Examiner] is applied to the claims at issue” (id.).
The Examiner did not, however, apply an inconsistent reading of
Wallace and instead, reasoned that “the claimed ‘template interface’ maps to
the ‘template window’ on page 42 of Wallace” (Ans. 21). The Examiner
concluded that “the ‘template window’ of Wallace is used as a way to create
specific rules based on a predefined form, as required by the instant claims”
(id.). We agree with the Examiner’s reasoning and conclusion. Wallace
Appeal 2010-009825
Application 10/705,208

5
discloses that “[i]n the template window, the botmaster types: Pizza is a
delicious food made with dough, cheese and tomato sauce” (p. 42). Wallace
further discloses that after entering text “in the