Ex Parte Mills et al

Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences

Mar 29, 2011

10188152 (B.P.A.I. Mar. 29, 2011)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
_____________

BEFORE THE BOARD OF PATENT APPEALS
AND INTERFERENCES
_____________

Ex parte SCOTT H. MILLS, KURT M. JOSEPH, JOHN M. MARTIN,
BENJAMIN A. KNOTT, ROBERT R. BUSHEY,
and THEODORE B. PASQUALE
_____________

Appeal 2009-008794
Application 10/188,152
Technology Center 2600
______________

Before ROBERT E. NAPPI, ELENI MANTIS MERCADER, and
CARL W. WHITEHEAD, JR., Administrative Patent Judges.

NAPPI, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL
Appeal 2009-008794
Application 10/188,152

2
This is a decision on appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) of the final
rejection of claims 1, 3-6, 8, 9, 11, 13-15, 17, 18, 20-25, 27, 29-32, and 34.1
We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We affirm the Examiner’s rejection of these claims.

INVENTION
The invention is directed to a method, computer-readable medium,
and system of categorizing opening statements related to customer service
requests. See Spec. 2. Claim 1 is representative of the invention and
reproduced below:
1. A method for categorizing customer service opening
statements, the method comprising:
collecting a plurality of opening statements to be
categorized;
creating one or more rules for categorizing the opening
statements;
grouping the rules into one or more sets of rules;
storing the sets of rules;
selecting one of the sets of rules to apply to the opening
statements;
automatically applying the rules in a predetermined order in
accordance with a rule hierarchy to a list of the opening
statements one opening statement at a time;
searching each opening statement for one or more text string
combinations;

1 Claims 2, 7, 16, and 26 were previously cancelled. Claims 10, 12, 19, 28,
and 33 are not addressed by Appellants in the Appeal Brief, nor are they
indicated as being allowable, withdrawn, or cancelled. As a result, these
claims remain rejected for the reasons stated by the Examiner on pages 9-12
of the Final Office Action.
Appeal 2009-008794
Application 10/188,152

3
automatically determining a category label for each opening
statement based upon the presence of one or more of the text
string combinations;
assigning a category label to each opening statement when
each opening statement first satisfies one of the rules; and
creating an output file including each opening statement and
a corresponding category label.

REFERENCES
Puckett US 5,619,621 Apr. 8, 1997
Smith US 6,052,693 Apr. 18, 2000
Angotti US 6,182,059 B1 Jan. 30, 2001
Johnson US 6,618,715 B1 Sept. 9, 2003
(filed Jun. 8, 2000)

REJECTION AT ISSUE
Claims 1, 3-6, 8, 9, 11, 13-15, 17, 18, 20-25, 27, 29-32, and 34 are
rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Angotti in
view of Puckett. Final 4-9.

ISSUES
Appellants argue on pages 4-9 of the Appeal Brief that the Examiner’s
rejection of claims 1, 3-6, 8, 9, 11, 13-15, 17, 18, 20-25, 27, 29-32, and 34 is
in error. Appellants select claim 1 as representative of the group comprising
claims 1, 3-6, 8, 9, 11, 13-15, 17, 18, 20-25, 27, 29-32, and 34. App. Br. 5,
7. Appellants argue that there is no motivation to combine Puckett with
Angotti. App. Br. 5. Additionally, Appellants argue that the combination of
Puckett with Angotti does not disclose “applying the rules in a
Appeal 2009-008794
Application 10/188,152

4
predetermined order in accordance with a rule hierarchy,” as required by
claim 1.
Thus, with respect to claims 1, 3-6, 8, 9, 11, 13-15, 17, 18, 20-25, 27,
29-32, and 34, Appellants’ contentions present us with two issues. First, did
the Examiner err in finding it obvious to combine Puckett with Angotti?
Second, did the Examiner err in finding that Angotti in view of Puckett
discloses applying rules in a predetermined order according to a rule
hierarchy?

ANALYSIS
Appellants’ arguments have not persuaded us that the Examiner erred
in rejecting claim 1. Appellants argue that there is no motivation to combine
Puckett with Angotti. App. Br. 5. Puckett’s rule hierarchy system is
contrary to an operating principle of Angotti’s expert system which does not
apply rules in a predetermined order. App. Br. 5. Appellants cite to a
Wikipedia document that is not provided in the Evidence Appendix and will
therefore not be considered. Even if the document was provided and
considered, Appellants’ arguments are still not persuasive.
Appellants argue that expert systems lack a formalized control
structure. App. Br. 6. Since Angotti discloses an expert system, Angotti
would not consider a hierarchical rule ordering system because this type of
ordering would indicate a formalized control structure. App. Br. 6.
However, as correctly noted by the Examiner, Angotti and Puckett are both
expert systems. Ans. 5. Since Puckett’s system discloses a hierarchical
method (Ans. 6), expert systems may contain hierarchical rule ordering. As
such, Appellants’ arguments are not persuasive.
Appeal 2009-008794
Application 10/188,152

5
Additionally, Appellants argue that neither Angotti nor Puckett
discloses “applying the rules in a predetermined order in accordance with a
rule hierarchy.” App. Br. 7. Appellants argue that this claim limitation, as
described in Appellants’ Specification, means that “the rule ordering is
determinative of the outcome.” App. Br. 8. Since Puckett’s ordering of
rules is not determinative of the outcome, Puckett does not disclose this
limitation. App. Br. 8. We disagree with Appellants’ rationale.
As correctly noted by the Examiner, claims are to be read in light of
the Specification, but limitations from the Specification are not to be read
into the claims. Ans. 10. Claim 1 does not specifically claim that the rule
ordering be determinative of the outcome. Therefore, this non-claimed
limitation will not be read into the claim. In addition, Appellants admit that
Puckett discloses rule sets that inherently have an order. App. Br. 8.
Therefore, Appellants’ arguments are not persuasive.
For the reasons stated supra, we sustain the Examiner’s rejection of
claim 1 and claims 3-6, 8, 9, 11, 13-15, 17, 18, 20-25, 27, 29-32, and 34 that
have been grouped with claim 1.

CONCLUSION
The Examiner did not err in finding it obvious to combine Puckett
with Angotti.
The Examiner did not err in finding that Angotti in view of Puckett
discloses applying rules in a predetermined order according to a rule
hierarchy.

Appeal 2009-008794
Application 10/188,152

6
SUMMARY
The Examiner’s decision to reject claims 1, 3-6, 8-15, 17-25, and 27-
34 is 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)(1)(iv).

AFFIRMED

babc