Ex Parte Nudd

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Jun 26, 2017

13180447 (P.T.A.B. Jun. 26, 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.
13/180,447 07/11/2011 Geoffrey Howard Nudd 10277-05606 US 2462
93219 7590 06/28/2017
Patent Law Works, LLP
201 South Main Street, Suite 250
Salt Lake City, UT 84111
EXAMINER
KONERU, SUJAY
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
3624
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
06/28/2017 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 @patentlawworks.net
patents @ patentlawworks .net
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte GEOFFREY HOWARD NUDD
Appeal 2015-0038361
Application 13/180,4472
Technology Center 3600
Before MURRIEL E. CRAWFORD, KENNETH G. SCHOPFER, and
TARA L. HUTCHINGS, Administrative Patent Judges.
HUTCHINGS, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Appellant appeals under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Examiner’s
rejection of claims 2, 4—14, and 16—21. We have jurisdiction under
35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We REVERSE.
1 Our decision references Appellant’s Appeal Brief (“App. Br.,” filed Nov.
6, 2014) and Reply Brief (“Reply Br.,” filed Feb. 17, 2015), and the
Examiner’s Answer (“Ans.,” mailed Dec. 17, 2014) and Non-Final Office
Action (“Non-Final Act.,” mailed June 6, 2014).
2 Appellant identifies ClearCare Inc. as the real party in interest. App. Br.
1.
Appeal 2015-003836
Application 13/180,447
CLAIMED INVENTION
Appellant’s claimed invention relates to “a computer-enabled
approach for updating a calendar or task status via a mobile tablet or
telephony.” Spec. 11.
Claim 19, reproduced below with added bracketed notations, is the
sole independent claim and representative of the subject matter on appeal:
19. A telephony accessible calendar system for use in a home
care scheduling system for scheduling multiple daily work
shifts of home care providers, comprising:
[(a)] a scheduling computer system configured to
organize a plurality of work shifts of remote operating home
care workers and specify tasks for the work shifts;
[(b)] a confirmation computer system configured to:
[(1)] receive, over a voice telephony network, a
clock in call from a worker of the remote operating home
care workers for a work shift of the plurality of work
shifts of the worker;
[(2)] in response to receipt of the clock in call,
transmit to the worker, over the voice telephony network,
a voice reading of tasks assigned to the worker for the
work shift for the worker without issuing a prompt to at
least one completion status update;
[(3)] in response to receipt of a first call
subsequent to the clock in call, transmit to the worker,
over the voice telephony network, a voice reading of the
tasks assigned to the worker for the work shift of the
worker, with the voice reading including prompts to
provide at least one completion status update;
[(4)] receive, over the voice telephony network, at
least one completion status update; and
[(5)] receive, over the voice telephony network, an
electronic signature including at least one of a voice
signature and a keypress signature affirming the
completion status update.
2
Appeal 2015-003836
Application 13/180,447
REJECTIONS
Claims 2, 4—8, 10-14, 16, and 18—21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a) as unpatentable over Albert (US 2011/0246220 Al, pub. Oct. 6,
2011), Byford (US 2010/0036667 Al, pub. Feb. 11, 2010), and Cruze
(US 2004/0153337 Al, pub. Aug. 5, 2004).
Claim 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over
Albert, Byford, Cruze, and Alessio (US 2009/0170482 Al, pub. July 2,
2009).
Claim 17 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over
Albert, Byford, Cruze, and Breazeale (US 2009/0204434 Al, pub. Aug. 13,
2009).
ANALYSIS
Independent Claim 19, and Dependent claims 2, 4—8, 10—14, 16, 18, 20, and
21
We are persuaded that the Examiner erred in rejecting independent
claim 19 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable because Byford does not
disclose or suggest limitations (b)(1)—(b)(3), as recited in claim 19. The
Examiner relies on Byford for the argued limitations. See Non-Final Act 6—
8 (citing Byford H 9, 40, 46, 56, 59, 60, 62, 71-74, Figs. IB, 3).
Byford is directed to a voice assistant system that uses speech or voice
technology in a work environment to facilitate a variety of tasks. Byford
112, 40. For example, a voice assistant assists a certified nursing assistant
(“CNA”) with performing a variety of tasks during the CNA’s work shift in
a care facility. Id. 140. Before the start of a CNA’s shift, a nurse may set
up and/or update a care for the CNA via nursing workstation 20. Id 146,
3
Appeal 2015-003836
Application 13/180,447
Fig. 1 A. Care plans typically remain unchanged from day-to-day and shift-
to-shift. Id. 160. Each CNA wears or carries a voice assistant 45, which
includes a headset portion 50 connected to device portion 55 via connecting
portion 60. Id. 156, Fig. 3.
When the CNA connects headset portion 50 to device portion 55 or
turns voice assistant 45 on, voice assistant 45 is activated and logs the CNA
onto voice assistant system 5. Id. In response to logging into voice assistant
system 5, one or more items (e.g., a list of residents assigned to the CNA,
and care plan data for residents assigned to the CNA) are transferred to voice
assistant 45. Id. The CNA uses speech (e.g., questions or commands) to
select predefined parameters from a menu, and the voice assistant 45
receives the speech and responds using speech synthesis. Id. 56, 59, 71.
For example, the CNA may ask: ‘“Who are my residents?,’” “‘Who has
updates?,’” “‘Who needs bathing?,”’ “‘Who needs care?”’ {id. Tflf 67—69), or
may invoke commands associated with various tasks, such as:
‘“Document,”’ ‘“Review,”’ and “‘Record’” {id. 170). Voice assistant 45
provides speech dialog in response. Id. 171. In addition, voice assistant 45
provides various statuses, such as a chime after a predetermined time period
to remind the CNA of an active reminder. Id. 173 (describing reminder
tone); see also id. ]Hf 72—74 (describing various audible statuses).
The Examiner determines that Byford’s description, at paragraph 56,
of the CNA logging into the voice assistant 45 renders the claimed receipt of
“a clock in call from a worker ... for a work shift of the plurality of work
shifts of the worker,” as recited in claim 19, obvious. Ans. 4 (“[clocking in
can be considered equivalent to establishing a connection,” and “making a
network connection [as described by Byford at paragraph 56] is more
4
Appeal 2015-003836
Application 13/180,447
advanced and thus makes a connection via a telephony network obvious.”).
Also, the Examiner finds that Byford’s description, at paragraph 56, of
transmitting items to voice assistant 45 and, at paragraph 71, of voice
assistant providing voice reading discloses limitation (b)(2) of claim 19.
As an initial matter, we agree with Appellant that Byford does not
describe a “clock in call,” as recited in claim 19. App. Br. 4—5. The term
“clock in” is generally understood to mean “to record the time you arrive at
work on a special machine.” See, e.g., Cambridge Dictionary,
http://dictionary.cambridge.org/dictionary/english/clock-in (last visited June,
26, 2017). Nothing in Appellant’s Specification indicates that the Appellant
intended to give the term a meaning that differs from its ordinary meaning.
See Spec, 6—7 (describing solutions like Santrax to track clock-in and
clock-out relative to shifts using telephony). Even if a “network
connection,” as described by Byford, renders obvious a call over a telephony
network, as determined by the Examiner (Ans. 4), the Examiner has not
explained how, and we do not see how, Byford’s description of logging into
a voice assistant describes or suggests recording the CNA’s time of arrival.
However, even assuming arguendo that Byford’s description of a
CNA logging into a voice assistant constitutes the claimed “clock in call,”
Byford does not describe or suggest that the voice assistant provides “a
voice reading of tasks assigned to the [CNA] for the work shift for the
[CNA],” “in response to receipt of the clock in call” and also “in response to
receipt of a first call subsequent to the clock in call,” as required by
independent claim 19, limitations (b)(2) and (b)(3), much less that the voice
reading in response to the clock in call does not issue a prompt to at least
one completion status update; whereas, the voice reading in response to the
5
Appeal 2015-003836
Application 13/180,447
first call subsequent to the clock in call does include prompts to provide at
least one completion status update. Instead, Byford describes that the voice
activator provides a voice reading in response to questions or commands
from the CNA.
Therefore, we do not sustain the Examiner’s rejection of independent
claim 19, and dependent claims 2, 4—8, 10-14, 16, 18, 20, and 21 under 35
U.S.C. § 103(a).
Dependent Claims 9 and 17
The Examiner’s rejections of dependent claims 9 and 17 do not cure
the deficiency in the Examiner’s rejection of independent claim 19 under
35 U.S.C. § 103(a). Therefore, we do not sustain the Examiner’s rejection
under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) of claims 9 and 17, for the same reasons set forth
above with respect to independent claim 19.
DECISION
The Examiner’s rejections of claims 2, 4—14, and 16—21 under
35 U.S.C. § 103(a) are reversed.
REVERSED
6