Ex Parte Rao

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Jun 18, 2014

10985702 (P.T.A.B. Jun. 18, 2014)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
____________

BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
____________

Ex parte BINDU RAMA RAO

____________

Appeal 2012-001573
Application 10/985,702
Technology Center 2100
____________

Before CAROLYN D. THOMAS, JOHN A. EVANS, and
LINZY T. McCARTNEY, Administrative Patent Judges.

EVANS, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL
Appellant1 seeks our review2 under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) of the

1 Appellant names himself, Bindu Rama Rao, as The Real Party in Interest.
App. Br. 3.
2 We have considered in this decision only those arguments Appellant
actually raised in the Briefs. Any other arguments which Appellant could
have made but chose not to make in the Briefs are deemed to be waived. See
37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(1)(iv).
Appeal 2012-001573
Application 10/985,702

2
Examiner’s final rejection of Claims 40-633 as obvious. We have
jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We AFFIRM.4
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
The claims relate to a questionnaire network to permit the creation,
dissemination, and the conduct of surveys on mobile handsets. See Abstract.
Claims 40, 49, and 56 are independent. Claims 1-39 are canceled.
App. Br. 12. The claims have not been argued separately and therefore stand
or fall together. 37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(1)(iv). An understanding of the
invention can be derived from a reading of exemplary Claim 40, which is
reproduced below with disputed limitations italicized:

40. A mobile device comprising:

a wireless communications interface operable to
communicate with a questionnaire server via a communications
path that includes at least one wireless portion;

a user interface including a display, an audio player, and a
user input; and

a questionnaire client system operable to:

3 App. Br. 3.
4 Our decision refers to Appellant’s Appeal Brief filed March 14, 2011
(“App. Br.”); Reply Brief filed August 4, 2011 (“Reply Br.”); Examiner’s
Answer mailed June 7, 2011 (“Ans.”); Final Office Action mailed August 6,
2010 (“Final Rej.”); and the original Specification filed November 10, 2004
(“Spec.”).
Appeal 2012-001573
Application 10/985,702

3
receive a digital format questionnaire from the
questionnaire server, the digital format questionnaire comprising
a plurality of digital format questions, each digital format
question comprising a packetized audio data preamble and a
question body data portion;

for each digital format question:
present the question body data portion on the
display while presenting the packetized audio data
preamble via the audio player; and

receive a response to the question body data portion
via the user input;

prepare a questionnaire response based upon responses
received to the plurality of digital format questions; and

transmit the questionnaire response to the questionnaire
server.

References and Rejections
The Examiner relies upon the prior art as follows:
Forrest US 6,267,379 B1 July 31, 2001
Hersh US 2002/0106617 A1 Aug. 8, 2002

Claims 40 - 63 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as obvious
over Forrest and Hersh. Ans. 4-17.

Appeal 2012-001573
Application 10/985,702

4
ANALYSIS
We have reviewed the Examiner’s rejection in light of Appellant’s
arguments that the Examiner has erred. We disagree with Appellant’s
conclusions.
INDEPENDENT CLAIMS 40, 49, AND 56
Appellant argues Claims 40, 49, and 56 as a group (App. Br. 7) and
we select Claim 40 as representative of this group, pursuant to our authority
under 37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(1)(vii).
Appellant contends that neither Forrest nor Hersh discloses a
questionnaire client system of a mobile device receiving a questionnaire that
includes multiple digital format questions, each having packetized audio
data preambles. Appellant acknowledges that the Examiner finds that
Forrest teaches audio data, but does not explicitly teach that each digital
format question comprises a packetized audio data preamble; nor does
Forrest teach presenting the question body data portion on the display after
presenting the packetized audio data preamble via the audio player. App.
Br. 7 (citing Fin. Rej., 5, 14).Appellant concludes that because Forrest does
not teach the claimed digital format questions, Forrest also cannot teach
receiving the claimed digital format questions. Appellant contends that
Hersh cannot remedy this deficiency because Hersh only teaches the display
of images while playing audio. Hersh does not disclose the claimed digital
format questions, each having packetized audio data preambles. App. Br. 7.
The Examiner finds that each of Forrest and Hersh explicitly disclose
questionnaires that are presented on computers, and thus are digital.
Ans. 18-19. The Examiner equates the “tests” of Hersh to the claimed
Appeal 2012-001573
Application 10/985,702

5
“questionnaire” and finds that Hersh teaches that each test question
comprises audio instructions that may be equated to the claimed “audio
preamble.” Ans. 19 (citing Hersh ¶¶ 0132—0140).
Appellant replies that the Examiner incorrectly equates Hersh’s test as
having audio instructions with the claimed questionnaire because Hersh’s
“test” includes multiple questions. Reply Br. 3. Appellant contends that a
single test with multiple questions is not the same as a single question in the
claimed questionnaire because each question in the claimed questionnaire
has an audio preamble, but each question in Hersh’s test does not. Reply Br.
4.
We are not persuaded by Appellant’s reading of Hersh. Hersh ¶¶
0132—0140, cited by the Examiner, teach that visual questions are
displayed and each question is accompanied by an auditory prompt. We find
no fault with the Examiner’s finding that the auditory prompt, as taught by
Hersh, teaches or fairly suggests the claimed audio preamble. In view
thereof, we are not persuaded that the Examiner has erred in rejecting
Claims 40, 49, and 56.
Appellant does not separately argue the patentability of Claims 41-48,
50-55, and 57-63. See App. Br. 6-10. We sustain the rejection of these
claims in view of the foregoing discussion.5

5 Appellant discloses that dependent Claims 44 and 59 stand objected to as
being inconsistent with the independent claims from which they depend.
App. Br. 6. Appellant purports to traverse the objection. App. Br. 10.
Objections to claims are not within the jurisdiction of the Patent Trial and
Appeal Board, but must be resolved by petition to the Director of the
USPTO. See MPEP § 706.01.
Appeal 2012-001573
Application 10/985,702

6

DECISION
The rejection of Claims 40-63 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 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

tj