Ex Parte Poltorak

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Jan 17, 2017

13106575 (P.T.A.B. Jan. 17, 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.
POLTORAK 205.1
P/5846-4
5588
EXAMINER
VINCENT, DAVID ROBERT
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2124
MAIL DATE DELIVERY MODE
13/106,575 05/12/2011
90150 7590
Ostrolenk Faber LLP
1180 Avenue of the Americas
New York, NY 10036
Alexander POLTORAK
01/17/2017 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
Ex parte ALEXANDER POLTORAK
Appeal 2015-001019
Application 13/106,575
Technology Center 2100
Before BRADLEY W. BAUMEISTER, ADAM J. PYONIN, and
PHILLIP A. BENNETT, Administrative Patent Judges.
PYONIN, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
This is a decision on appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from a Final
Rejection of claims 1—25 and 34-41, which are all of the pending claims.
See App. Br. 12.1 We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We REVERSE.
1 In this Decision, we refer to the Appeal Brief mailed July 7, 2014
(“App. Br.”)
Appeal 2015-001019
Application 13/106,575
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Introduction
The Application is directed “to personal devices having social human-
machine user interfaces.” Spec. 12. Claims 1, 15, 34, and 38 are
independent. Claim 1 is reproduced below for reference:
1. A user interface device comprising:
an audio visual information input interface configured to
receive information sufficient to determine at least one of a topic
of interest to a user and a query from a user, dependent on at least
received audio visual information;
at least one memory configured to store an automatically
generated user interest and knowledge profile based on at least
prior interaction of the user interface device with the user;
at least one automated processor, configured to:
automatically generate at least one automated
search engine query based on the at least one of the topic
of interest and the query,
communicate the at least one automated Internet
search engine query to at least one remote search engine
having a database of information items, through an
automated computer communication network,
receive responses from the at least one automated
Internet search engine responsive to the at least one
automated Internet search engine query indentifying [sic]
a source of information items,
implement an interactive conversational agent,
based on at least the stored user profile, the topic of interest
or user query, and the identified information items; and
at least one audio visual output interface configured to
present the interactive conversational agent dynamically
controlled by the at least one automated processor, conveying the
information of interest to the user; and
an audio visual telecommunication interface.
2
Appeal 2015-001019
Application 13/106,575
References and Rejections
The prior art relied upon by the Examiner in rejecting the claims on
appeal is:
Cain US 7,751,285 B1 July 6,2010
Estevez US 2011/0014932 A1 Jan. 20,2011
Borzestowski US 8,156,060 B2 Apr. 10,2012
“It’s just like you talk to a friend” Relational Agents for Older Adults;
Interacting with Computers 17 (6), pp. 711—735; Bickmore, T., Caruso,
L., Clough-Gorr, K., and Heeren, T. (2005) (hereinafter, “Bickmore”).
Claims 1—3, 7—10, 12—17, 20, 21, 23, 25, 34—38, and 40 stand
rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 102(e) as being anticipated by Estevez or, in the
alternative, under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as obvious over Estevez and
Borzestowski. App. Br. 12; Final Act.2 6—15.
Claims 4—6, 11, 18, 19, 22, and 39 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a) as being obvious over Estevez, Borzestowski, Cain, and Bickmore.
Final Act. 16—19.
Claims 24 and 41 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
obvious over Estevez, Borzestowski, and Bickmore. Final Act. 19—21.
ANALYSIS
Appellant argues that, in rejecting claim 1, “[t]he Examiner errs in
failing to consider the segregation of elements, interrelations and functions
of elements, and therefore merely treats Estevez as a jigsaw puzzle from
which to find pieces of the claims.” Reply Br. 15; see also App. Br. 17. In
contrast with the Examiner’s determination, Appellant contends
2 In this Decision, we refer to the Final Action (“Final Act.”) included with
the Office Communication mailed December 6, 2013.
3
Appeal 2015-001019
Application 13/106,575
Estevez fails to teach or suggest at least that audio information,
a required component of audio visual information, is used as an
input to the user interface device “to receive information
sufficient to determine at least one of a topic of interest to a user
and a query from a user, dependent on at least received audio
visual information” as required by claim 1.
Reply Br. 12; see also App. Br. 21. Additionally, Appellant asserts “Estevez
is further believed to fail to teach or suggest a stored user interest and
knowledge profile, which is automatically generated based on at least prior
interaction of the user interface device with the user,” as required by claim 1.
App. Br. 16.3
We are persuaded by Appellant that the Examiner erred. “[UJnless a
reference discloses within the four comers of the document not only all of
the limitations claimed but also all of the limitations arranged or combined
in the same way as recited in the claim, it cannot be said to prove prior
invention of the thing claimed.” Net Money In, Inc. v. VeriSign, Inc., 545
F.3d 1359, 1371 (Fed. Cir. 2008). Here, the Examiner provides various
rejection rationales, but fails to show how Estevez discloses or teaches all of
the limitations arranged or combined in the same way as recited in claim 1.
For example, the Examiner finds the recited “an audio visual
information input interface configured to receive information . . . dependent
on at least received audio visual information” is disclosed by any of the
following: Estevez’s phone keypad entry (Ans. 21); displaying information
on the phone display (Ans. 25); implementing audio and video streaming,
storage, and playback by the phone (Ans. 25); or pictures and audio sent by
a calling phone to a receiving phone (Ans. 26). The Examiner also finds the
3 Appellant presents additional arguments, but we do not reach them because
the identified arguments are dispositive of the appeal.
4
Appeal 2015-001019
Application 13/106,575
above information, as used by Estevez, is “sufficient to determine at least
one of a topic of interest or a query [as required by claim 1 ] because topic
can be a person or the query can be a query pertaining to a person”
(Advisory Act.4 3).
We find the Examiner erred. First, we agree with Appellant that the
recited “audio visual information” requires both audio and visual
components. See App. Br. 21. Second, we agree with Appellant that none
of the disclosures of audio visual information in Estevez are used to
determine a topic of interest to a user or a query from a user, as required by
the claim. Id. at 22. That is, Estevez discloses that each person (i.e., the
user placing the call (caller) or the user receiving the call (recipient)) is
identified prior to implementing the call or transmitting information. See
App. Br. 23—24; see also Estevez FIG. 5a. Thus, although the Examiner
finds Estevez discloses “audio visual information” and “at least one of a
topic of interest to a user and a query from a user,” we are persuaded that the
Examiner failed to show how the second limitation is “dependent on” the
first limitation, within the meaning of the claim.
Nor does the Examiner explain which person described by Estevez
(the caller or the recipient) is relied upon for the claimed “user.” See
Ans. 27; Estevez FIGs. 4a, 5a. As such, the Examiner has not identified
which embodiment of Estevez (the caller viewing an avatar of the recipient,
or the recipient viewing an avatar of the caller) discloses the various
additional limitations of claim 1, including a user interface device
4 We refer to the Advisory Action (“Advisory Act.”) mailed March 13, 2014.
5
Appeal 2015-001019
Application 13/106,575
configured to5 “store an automatically generated user interest and knowledge
profile based on . .. the user” and “implement an interactive conversational
agent, based on at least the stored user profile” (emphasis added). See
Reply Br. 28,31. Thus, we find the Examiner has not established that
Estevez can “be said to prove prior invention of the thing claimed.” Net
Moneyln, Inc. 545 F.3d 1371.
CONCLUSION
The Examiner has not shown claim 1, as a whole, to be anticipated by
Estevez. Further, the Examiner relies on the findings in Estevez discussed
above in the obviousness rejection of claim 1. See Ans. 33. Thus, we are
persuaded the Examiner erred in rejecting independent claim 1 under both of
the anticipation and obviousness grounds. The Examiner similarly erred in
rejecting independent claims 15, 34, and 38, which contain similar
limitations and are rejected for similar reasons. Constrained by the record
before us, we do not sustain the Examiner’s rejections of independent claim
1,15, 34, and 38, and the claims dependent thereon.
DECISION
The Examiner’s rejection of claims 1—25 and 34-41 is reversed.
REVERSED
5 See Typhoon Touch Technologies, Inc. v. Dell, Inc., 659 F.3d 1376, 1380
(Fed. Cir. 2011) (construing “memory . . . configured to” as “memory that
must perform the recited function.”)
6