Ex Parte Milton et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Feb 29, 2016

11946778 (P.T.A.B. Feb. 29, 2016)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
111946,778 11128/2007 Stephen M. Milton
47827 7590 02/29/2016
Avaya by MUNCY, GEISSLER, OLDS & LOWE, P.C.
4000 LEGATO ROAD, SUITE 310
FAIRFAX, VA 22033
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.
3655/0350PUS 1 9781
EXAMINER
LAEKEMARIAM, YOSEF K
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2651
MAILDATE DELIVERY MODE
02/29/2016 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
Exparte STEPHEN M. MILTON and
WILLIAM JOSEPH TOTH JR.
Appeal2014-004775
Application 11/946,778
Technology Center 2600
Before JOSEPH L. DIXON, JEFFREY A. STEPHENS, and
NATHAN A. ENGELS, Administrative Patent Judges.
DIXON, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
Appeal2014-004775
Application 11/946,778
STATEMENT OF CASE
Appellants appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134 from a Final Rejection of
claims 1, 3-9, 13-19, 23, 25-29, 31, and 33-39. We have jurisdiction under
35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We affirm.
The claims are directed to automatic emergency profile. Claim 23,
reproduced below, is representative of the claimed subject matter:
23. A method of automatically providing a user profile, which
includes information on a user of a telecommunications device,
to an emergency call center, the method comprising:
detecting based on one or more button presses on a
telecommunications device that a user of the telecommunications
device is placing a call to an emergency call center; and
in response to said detecting, automatically transmitting a
user profile to the emergency call center, thereby providing the
emergency call center with the information on the user of the
telecommunications device.
REFERENCES
The prior art relied upon by the Examiner in rejecting the claims on
appeal is:
King et al.
Laird et al.
Toe bes
Benco et al.
Naidoo et al.
D'Ambrosia et al.
us 5,864,755
US 2005/0085257 Al
US 6,940,954 B 1
US 2006/0293024 Al
US 7,185,282 Bl
US 2007 /0250348 Al
2
Jan. 26, 1999
Apr. 21, 2005
Sept.6,2005
Dec. 28, 2006
Feb.27, 2007
Oct. 25, 2007
Appeal2014-004775
Application 11/946,778
REJECTIONS
The Examiner made the following rejections:
Claims 23, 25, 26, 28, 29, 34--37, and 39 stand rejected under 35
U.S.C. § 102(b) as being anticipated by Laird.
Claims 1, 4-9, 13, 14, and 17-19 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a) as being unpatentable over Laird in view of Benco.
Claims 3 and 31 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Laird in view of Naidoo.
Claim 15 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Laird in view of Benco as applied to claim 1 above, and
further in view of King.
Claim 16 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Laird in view of Benco as applied to claim 1 above, and
further in view of D'Ambrosia.
Claim 27 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Laird in view of D'Ambrosia.
Claim 33 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Laird in view of Toe bes.
Claim 38 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Toe bes in view of Laird.
ANALYSIS
We concur with the conclusions reached by the Examiner, and adopt
as our own ( 1) the findings and reasons set forth by the Examiner in the
action from which this appeal is taken (Final Act. 2-23; Ans. 2-17), and (2)
the reasons set forth by the Examiner in the Examiner's Answer in response
to Appellants' Appeal Brief (Ans. 17-20). We highlight and amplify certain
3
Appeal2014-004775
Application 11/946,778
teachings and suggestions of the references, as well as certain ones of
Appellants' arguments as follows.
Anticipation
With respect to independent claim 23, Appellants repeat the language
of the claim and contend that Laird does not show or suggest placing a call
to a location (an emergency call center) and sending a user profile to that
same location (the emergency call center) as recited in claim 23. Instead,
according to Appellants, Laird detects a call to a first location, the [Public
Safety Answering Point] PSAP 112, and sends a user profile to a second
location, campus security. (App. Br. 6). The Examiner responds that:
Examiner respectfully disagrees. Laird discloses how a system
detecting an indication of a potential emergency, such as an
attempt to place an emergency call (or to send an emergency
message) by the handset user to a campus security management
system (i.e. an emergency call center) (Laird: Paragraph: 0031 );
and how the campus security management system or server
accessing a database and automatically displaying additional
information such as medical condition, home address and
telephone number, doctor's contact information, a person to
contact in case of emerge etc. (i.e. user profile) about an
emergency call attempt handset and user.
(Ans. 17; see also Final Act. 2-3 (citing Laird Abstract, Figs. 1, 5, i-fi-131,
63---65, 91)).
We agree with the Examiner. As the Examiner finds (Final Act. 2-3),
Laird discloses a system in which an operator at a dispatcher workstation
receives a call from a wireless handset and a server establishes data
communications with the handset. See, e.g., Laird Abstract. Laird states, for
example, that "[t]he server displays information about the handset, a user
and the sensors, so a dispatcher can dispatch assistance." Laird Abstract;
4
Appeal2014-004775
Application 11/946,778
compare Laird Abstract, with Spec. i-fi-1 21 ("The present invention
recognizes that there is a need for an emergency dispatcher to automatically
receive information about an emergency caller .... "); 33 ("the emergency
call center includes a call coordinator which is configured to receive the user
profile from the user profile manager and transmit the user profile to an
emergency dispatcher."). In view of Laird's disclosure of a dispatcher work
station that receives both calls and user profiles, we are unpersuaded by
Appellants' argument that Laird's disclosures are limited to systems in
which calls are received at a PSAP that is geographically separated from an
emergency call center that receives a user's profile. Consequently, we agree
with the Examiner that the Laird reference anticipates the invention recited
in claim 23. As a result, we sustain the anticipation rejection of independent
claim 23 and the dependent claims 25, 26, 28, 29, and 34--37 not separately
argued. Further, with respect to independent claim 39, rely upon the
arguments advanced with respect to independent claim 23, and we sustain
the rejection of independent claim 39 for the same reasons.
Obviousness
Claim 1 recites a system that includes, in relevant part, "a network
device configured to connect a transmission from a telecommunications
device to a recipient device over a public switched telephone network." See
Br. 7. Appellants argue the Examiner failed to explain how a person of
ordinary skill would have combined the teachings of Laird's system with
Benco's disclosure of a publicly switched telephone network. Br. 8.
Appellants further contend that:
Instructing a person of ordinary skill in the art to "modify
Laird with a public switch telephone network" or to "modify
Laird with Benco" does not in any way explain what the
examiner is proposing to do and would not enable a person of
5
Appeal2014-004775
Application 11/946,778
ordinary skill in the art to tum the campus security management
server of Laird into a device configured to connect a transmission
from a telecommunications device to a recipient device over a
PSTN as recited in claim 1.
(App. Br. 8). We find Appellants' argument to be unavailing and agree with
the Examiner for the reasons stated in the Final Rejection and the
Examiner's Answer, which we adopt and incorporate herein.
"The test for obviousness is not whether the features of a secondary
reference may be bodily incorporated into the structure of the primary
reference." See In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 425 (CCPA 1981). The test for
obviousness "is what the combined teachings of the references would have
suggested to those of ordinary skill in the art." Id. (citations omitted);
accord KSR Int 'l Co. v. TeleFlex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 418 (S. Ct. 2007)
(obviousness analysis does not require precise teachings of the claimed
subject; the analysis should account for the inferences and creative steps that
a person of ordinary skill in the art would employ).
Here, it is undisputed that public switched telephone networks were
known at the time of Appellants' invention. The Supreme Court has stated
that the combination of familiar elements according to known methods is
likely to be obvious when it does no more than yield predictable
results. KSR Int'!, 550 U.S. at 416. Appellants have not demonstrated that
the Examiner's proffered combination of references would have been
"uniquely challenging or difficult for one of ordinary skill in the art." See
Leapfrog Enters., Inc. v. Fisher-Price, Inc., 485 F.3d 1157, 1162 (Fed. Cir.
2007) (citingKSR, 550 U.S. at 418).
Consequently, we sustain the obviousness rejection of independent
claim 1 and claims 4--9, 13, 14 and 17-19 not separately argued.
6
Appeal2014-004775
Application 11/946,778
With respect to independent claims 3 and 31, Appellants repeat the
language of claim 3 and argue the claims together. (App. Br. 9-10). We
select independent claim 3 as the representative claim for the group and
address Appellants' arguments thereto. Appellants contend that "[ n ]othing
in the record suggests that a user profile should be sent to campus security
after a period of cell phone inactivity." (App. Br. 10).
The Examiner finds, and we agree, that Naidoo teaches or suggests
the disputed limitation of claim 3 with its disclosure of a system in which a
notification is sent to an emergency response provided when a patient fails
to reset, respond, or otherwise acknowledge a reminder that requires a
response or acknowledgement. See Ans. 19 (citing Naidoo col. 10, 11. 7-26);
see also Laird i-fi-1 7-8 (explaining the benefit of providing a user profile
when a caller is unable or unwilling to provide profile information), 173
("[t]he message can identify the user and notify the emergency operator that
the user is unable to speak with the operator"). As a result, Appellants'
argument does not show error in the Examiner's conclusion of obviousness
of representative claim 3 and claim 31 not separately argued.
With respect to claims 15, 16, and 27, Appellants rely on the
arguments advanced with respect to their respective parent claims.
Therefore, these claims fall with parent claims 1 and 23.
With respect to dependent claim 33, Appellants present a general
argument for patentability of dependent claim 33 but do not identify how the
claimed invention differentiates from the combination of the Laird and
Toebes references. Accordingly, we find Appellants' arguments
unpersuasive as mere attorney argument. See In re Lovin, 652 F.3d 1349,
1357 (Fed. Cir. 2011). Further, we agree with the Examiner that Toebes
teaches storage of multiple user profiles corresponding to the user of a
7
Appeal2014-004775
Application 11/946,778
telecommunications device for the reasons explained by the Examiner in the
Final Rejection and the Examiner's Answer. (See Ans. 19).
With respect to independent claim 3 8, Appellants repeat the language
of the claim and contend that:
nothing in the record shows how an emergency call center would
be given access to the recordings stored in various PBX's. The
fact that something can be accomplished in a centrally controlled
PBX in Toebes in no manner suggests that all telephones in a
telephone network, including those of an emergency call center,
can access recordings stored by a PBX. Moreover, even if the
PBX in Toebes could be accessed by the call center, the most that
Toebes would transmit to the emergency call center is a
recording of a person's name. Nothing about Toebes or Laird
suggests "transmitting a user profile which is associated with a
first telecommunications device to an emergency call center in
response to the predetermined event at the second
telecommunications device."
(App. Br. 13-14). We find the Appellants' argument does not address the
proffered combination of references as applied by the Examiner in the Final
Action. (Final Act. 21-22). As a result, Appellants' argument does not
show error in the Examiner's conclusion of obviousness of independent
claim 38.
CONCLUSIONS
The Examiner did not err in rejecting claims 23, 25, 26, 28, 29, 34--37,
and 39 based upon anticipation, and the Examiner did not err in rejecting
claims 1, 3-9, 13-19, 27, 33, and 38 based upon obviousness.
8
Appeal2014-004775
Application 11/946,778
DECISION
For the above reasons, the Examiner's rejections of claims 1, 3-9, 13-
19, 23, 25-29, 31, and 33-39 are sustained.
No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with
this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a)(l )(iv).
AFFIRMED
9