Ex Parte McBride et alDownload PDFPatent Trial and Appeal BoardJan 30, 201310705208 (P.T.A.B. Jan. 30, 2013) Copy Citation 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 Copy with citationCopy as parenthetical citation