Ex Parte Mintz et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Feb 22, 2017

13973488 (P.T.A.B. Feb. 22, 2017)

United States Patent and Trademark Office
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
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE FIRST NAMED INVENTOR ATTORNEY DOCKET NO. CONFIRMATION NO.
13/973,488 08/22/2013 Ido Mintz V203 3963
72623 7590 02/24/2017
MOSFR TAROADA / VON A OF HOT DTNOS OORP
EXAMINER
1030 BROAD STREET AFSHAR, KAMRAN
SUITE 203
SHREWSBURY, NJ 07702 ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2646
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
02/24/2017 ELECTRONIC
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.
Notice of the Office communication was sent electronically on above-indicated "Notification Date" to the
following e-mail address(es):
docketing@mtiplaw.com
llinardakis @ mtiplaw. com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte IDO MINTZ and RONI SALFATI
Appeal 2016-003722
Application 13/973,4881
Technology Center 2600
Before JEAN R. HOMERE, CARL W. WHITEHEAD JR, and
NABEEL U. KHAN, Administrative Patent Judges.
HOMERE, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Appellants seek our review under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) of the
Examiner’s Final Rejection of claims 1—20, which constitute all of the
claims pending in this appeal. App. Br. 1,2 We have jurisdiction under 35
U.S.C. § 6(b).
We affirm.
1 Appellants identify the real party in interest as Vonage Network LLC. App.
Br. 3.
2 Appeal Brief filed Aug. 28, 2015 (“App. Br.”).
Appeal 2016-003722
Application 13/973,488
Appellants ’ Invention
Appellants invented a method and apparatus for determining whether
a user intended to initiate a voice communication session with another party.
Spec. 129.3 In particular, after establishing the voice communication
session, the user’s voice is analyzed by authenticating user’s voiceprint to
thereby identity the user, and to verify that the user intended to place the
call. Id.
Illustrative Claim
Independent claim 1 is illustrative, and reads as follows:
1. A method for determining intent of an end-user in a
communication session comprising:
establishing a voice communication session between a
first user device and a second user device;
performing a voice analysis process to verily an identity
of the end-user;
determining whether the end-user intended to establish the
voice communication session based on the voice analysis
process; and
determining whether to permit voice communications over
the established voice communication session based on the
determined end-user intent, wherein all voice communications
from the first user device is prevented from being transmitted
over the established voice communication session at least until it
is determined that the end-user intended to established the voice
communication session.
3 Specification filed Aug. 22, 2013, amended Mar. 12, 2015 (“Spec.”).
2
Appeal 2016-003722
Application 13/973,488
Prior Art Relied Upon
Di Mambro
Jayasuriya
Hoshuyama
Spector US 2007/0055517 A1 Mar. 8, 2007
US 2007/0185718 A1 Aug. 9, 2007
US 2010/0144315 A1 June 10, 2010
US 2012/0299824 A1 Nov. 29, 2012
Rejections on Appeal
Claims 1, 2, 8—10, and 13—17 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a)
as being unpatentable over the combination of Spector and Jayasuriya. Final
Act. 2—9.4,5
Claim 3 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over the combination of Spector, Jayasuriya, and Hoshuyama.
Final Act. 9.6
Claims 4—7 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over the combination of Spector, Jayasuriya, DiMambro, and.
Hoshuyama. Final Act. 9—11.7
4 Final Office Action mailed Apr. 8, 2015 (“Final Act.”).
5 Because claims 13 and 14 are discussed in the body of the rejection as
being part of this group of claims, we treat as harmless error the Examiner’s
omission of claims 13 and 14 from the statement of the rejection.
6 Because claim 3 depends indirectly from claim 1, we treat as harmless
error the Examiner’s omission of Jayasuriya from the statement of the
rejection.
7 Because claims 4—7 depend from claim 1, we treat as harmless error the
Examiner’s omission of Jayasuriya from the statement of the rejection.
3
Appeal 2016-003722
Application 13/973,488
Claims 11—12 and 18—20 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
being unpatentable over the combination of Spector, Jayasuriya, DiMambro,
and Hoshuyama. Final Act. 11—13.8
ANALYSIS
We consider Appellants’ arguments seriatim, as they are presented in
the Appeal Brief, pages 6—10, and the Reply Brief, pages 2—5.9
Regarding the rejection of claim 1, Appellants argue the proposed
combination of Spector and Jayasuriya does not teach or suggest
determining whether an end user intended to place a call based on a voice
analysis performed after the call is established. App. Br. 6. In particular,
Appellants argue “[bjoth Spector and Jayasuriya restrict access to a resource
or service until a user’s identity can be verified or authenticated.” In
contrast, in the claimed invention, the intent of the user is determined after
the voice communication session has been established. Id. at 7. This
argument is not persuasive.
As correctly noted by the Examiner, Spector discloses establishing a
voice communication session between a user and another party before
analyzing the user’s voice. Ans.10 2—3, 14—15 (citing Spector 140, Fig. 1,
8 Because claims 11—12 and 18—20 depend respectively from claims 9 ad 17,
we treat as harmless error the Examiner’s omission of Jayasuriya from the
statement of the rejection.
9 Rather than reiterate the arguments of Appellants and the Examiner, we
refer to the Appeal Brief (filed August 28, 2015), the Reply Brief (filed
February 23, 2016), and the Answer (mailed December 24, 2015) for their
respective details. We have considered in this Decision only those
arguments Appellants actually raised in the Briefs. Any other arguments
Appellants could have made but chose not to make in the Briefs are deemed
to be waived. See 37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(l)(iv) (2012).
10 Examiner’s Answer mailed Dec. 24, 2015 (“Ans.”).
4
Appeal 2016-003722
Application 13/973,488
element 104). Further, as correctly noted by the Examiner, Jayasuriya
discloses authenticating a user as a way to verily the user’s identity. Id.
(citing Jayasuriya 145, Fig. 7, element 750). Additionally, because the cited
teachings of Spector and Jayasuriya are known elements that perform their
ordinary functions to predictably result in a communication system wherein
a user’s identity is verified through voice analysis subsequent to the user’s
voice session having been established with another party, the proposed
combination is proper. KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 418
(2007). Therefore, we agree with the Examiner that the proposed
combination of references teaches the disputed limitations and thereby
renders claim 1 unpatentable. Id. at 14—15.
We note in passing that Spector, alone, discloses establishing the
voice communication session (Fig. 1, element 104) between the user and
another party before authenticating the user’s voice (Fig. 1, elements 106—
108) to identify the user. Spector || 40, 64, Fig. 1. Accordingly, the
ordinarily skilled artisan would appreciate that because the user took the
time to go through an authentication process including a voice analysis
process before being allowed to access the desired resource, the user placed
the call intentionally to establish the voice communication session at the
outset.
Therefore, we are not persuaded the Examiner erred in finding the
combination of Spector and Jayasuriya teaches or suggests the disputed
limitations. Accordingly, we sustain the Examiner’s obviousness rejection of
claim 1.
Regarding the rejection of claims 2—20, because Appellants reiterate
substantially the same arguments as those previously discussed for
5
Appeal 2016-003722
Application 13/973,488
patentability of claim 1 above, the cited claims fall therewith. See 37 C.F.R.
§ 41.37(c)(l)(iv).
For the above reasons, we affirm the Examiner’s obviousness
rejections of claims 1—20.
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
6