Ex Parte Reuveni et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Mar 14, 2016

12413625 (P.T.A.B. Mar. 14, 2016)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE
12/413,625 0313012009
49443 7590 03/16/2016
Pearl Cohen Zedek Latzer Baratz LLP
1500 Broadway
12th Floor
New York, NY 10036
FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
Eran Reuveni
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.
P-71358-US 9484
EXAMINER
GURMU, MULUEMEBET
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2163
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
03/16/2016 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):
USPTO@PearlCohen.com
Arch-USPTO@PearlCohen.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte ERAN REUVEN! and
ASSAF SILBERSTEIN1
Appeal2014-000439
Application 12/413,625
Technology Center 2100
Before CAROLYN D. THOMAS, JEFFREYS. SMITH, and
JASON V. MORGAN, Administrative Patent Judges.
MORGAN, Administrative Patent Judge.
Dissenting Opinion filed by SMITH, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
Introduction
This is an appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Examiner's final
rejection of claims 1-3, 6-12, and 15-24. Claims 4, 5, 13, and 14 are
1 Appellants identify Q.Nomy, Inc., as the real party in interest. App. Br. 1.
Appeal2014-000439
Application 12/413,625
canceled. App. Br. 15-17. An Oral Hearing was held January 14, 2016.
We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We REVERSE.
Invention
Appellants disclose a queue management method in which a user
selects and is associated with an image, which is used to display a status of
the queue and to summon the user to receive a service. Abstract.
Exemplary Claim
Claim 1, reproduced below with key limitations emphasized, is
rnustrative:
1. A method comprising:
using a processor, providing a user with a plurality of
images from a free list of images available to use as an avatar to
be used to indicate a user's place in a queue;
receiving a selection of an image from among the
plurality of images from the user, the user \vaiting in the queue;
in response to the user selection, removing the image
from the free list using the processor;
using the processor, associating the image with the user,
wherein for each user in the queue, a different image is
associated with that user;
using the processor, displaying a user's queue status on a
display using the image; and
using the processor, summoning the user from the queue
to receive a service when the user reaches the front of the queue
by displaying the image on the display.
Rejections
The Examiner rejects claims 1-3, 7-12, and 15-24 under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a) as being unpatentable over Ahlstrom et al. (US 6,059,184; May 9,
1
Appeal2014-000439
Application 12/413,625
2000), Szeto et al. (US 2008/0082613 Al; Apr. 3, 2008), and Silberstein
(US 2005/0027573 Al; Feb. 3, 2005). Final Act. 2-25.
The Examiner rejects claim 6 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Ahlstrom, Szeto, Silberstein, and Patel et al. (US 2007 I
0280468 Al; Dec. 6, 2007). Final Act. 25-26.
ISSUE
Do the Examiner's findings persuasively show the combination of
Ahlstrom, Szeto, and Silberstein teaches or suggests "in response to the user
selection, removing the image from the free list," as recited in claim 1?
ANALYSIS
In rejecting claim 1, the Examiner finds a user's election to present an
image or an avatar in place of a yellow smiley face in Szeto teaches or
suggests providing a user with a plurality of images from a free list of
images available to use as an avatar. Final Act. 4--5 (citing Szeto Fig. 6,
il 5). The Examiner further finds a customer obtaining a queue number in
Ahlstrom teaches or suggests receiving a selection of an image from a user
waiting in a queue. Final Act. 3 (citing Alhstrom col. 1, 11. 33-38, col. 2, 11.
61---64).
However, the Examiner finds "Ahlstrom and Szeto do not explicitly
disclose in response to the user selection, removing the image from the free
list .... " Final Act. 5. Thus, the Examiner relies on Silberstein's marking
of a customer as "abandoned" (i.e., having become tired of waiting in line
and leaving before getting service) to teach or suggests in response to the
user selection, removing the image from the free list. Final Act. 5---6 (citing
Silberstein i-fi-170, 79, and 95); Ans. 5---6 (further citing Silberstein Fig. 8d,
i1 99). Specifically, the Examiner notes that Silberstein includes a calendar
2
Appeal2014-000439
Application 12/413,625
used to view, add, and edit customer appointments. Ans. 5. This calendar
can show "customer status 601 and customer type." Id.; see also Silberstein
Fig. 6a. An "exact date is selected by clicking on a Calendar date icon."
Ans. 5. "Editing an existing Appointment is done by clicking the Ticket
Number." Id. And, if it is confirmed that a customer has abandoned the
queue before being called, a Q-Flow database moves the customer into the
abandoned status 946. See id. (citing, e.g., Silberstein i-fi-170, 99, and Fig.
8d).
Appellants contend the Examiner erred because the
cited passages are related to manipulating or editing the status
of customers when they leave the queue or when an
appointment changes. In paragraph [0070], Silberstein
describes what happens when customers leave the queue
entirely, instead of claim 1 's limitations that an image is
removed from the free list when a user or customer is added to
[the] queue and chooses an image ...
App. Br. 8.
Appellants acknowledge "service console 214 may mark a customer
as 'abandoned' if a customer is called and the customer fails to appear, and
the service console 214 may also allow other labels to be placed on
customers." Id. However, Appellants argue that "in Silberstein, when a
customer leaves the queue system he is removed from the system" (i.e.,
moved into an abandoned status). Id. at 8. Therefore, Appellants argue, the
claimed removing of an image from a free list-" a free list of images
available to use as an avatar" (id. }-is not taught or suggested by modifying
the combination of Szeto and Ahlstrom using Silberstein because "the 'free
list' the Examiner asserts Silberstein teaches is a list of waiting customers"
(id. at 9).
3
Appeal2014-000439
Application 12/413,625
We agree with Appellants the Examiner erred. The Examiner
repeatedly emphasizes that the marking of a customer as "abandoned" or
transferred to another agent or queue teaches or suggests the claimed
removal of an image from a free list in response to a user selection. See
Final Act. 5---6; Ans. 5-6. However, the Examiner provides inadequate
findings or explanation as to how such a marking---even in combination
with Szeto' s use of an image as an avatar and Ahlstrom' s customer
obtaining a queue number-teaches or suggests the disputed removal of an
image from a free list, as the newly marked abandoned customer is not on a
free list, but rather on a list of waiting customers.
Although the Examiner points to additional teachings in Silberstein
that relate to the selection of a date on a calendar (see Final Act. 6; Ans. 5.),
the Examiner appears to merely cite to these as showing the context in which
a customer is marked as "abandoned," but goes on to emphasize that it is the
abandoned status of a customer that is being relied upon to teach or suggest
the claimed removal of an image from a free list. See Final Act. 6; Ans. 5.
We are constrained by the record and thus, for these reasons, we find
the Examiner's findings do not persuasively show that the combination of
Ahlstrom, Szeto, and Silberstein teaches or suggests "in response to the user
selection, removing the image from the free list," as recited in claim 1.
Accordingly, we do not sustain the Examiner's 35 U.S.C. § 103(a)
rejection of claim 1. Claims 2, 3, 6-12, and 15-24 contain similar
recitations. Moreover, the Examiner does not show Patel cures the noted
deficiency in the combination of Ahlstrom, Szeto, and Silberstein.
Therefore, we also do not sustain the Examiner's 35 U.S.C. § 103(a)
rejections of these claims.
4
Appeal2014-000439
Application 12/413,625
DECISION
We reverse the Examiner's decision rejecting claims 1-3, 6-12, and
15-24.
REVERSED
5
Appeal2014-000439
Application 12/413,625
SMITH, Administrative Patent Judge, DISSENTING
Appellants contend Silberstein does not teach removing an image
from a free list in response to a user selection and associating the image with
the user. Reply Br. 3. Specifically, Appellants contend Silberstein's
teaching of a customer leaving a queue teaches the opposite of a customer
entering a queue and removing an image. App. Br. 8. The logical inference
of Appellants' contention is that Silberstein' s teaching of a customer
entering a queue teaches "removing the image from the free list" and
"associating the image with the user" as recited in claim 1.
Here, the Examiner cites Figure 6a and paragraphs 79 and 86 of
Silberstein to teach a customer entering a queue, removing an image from
the free list of images, and associating the image with the customer. See
Final Act. 5---6; Ans. 5. Figure 6a shows a customer named Bobby Glick
who enters a queue by selecting an appointment time of 10:30. The name of
Bobby Glick, when placed next to the selected image of 10:30, removes the
image of 10: 3 0 from the free list of times, and associates the image of 10: 3 0
with Bobby Glick. Thus, a customer who enters the queue at the 10:30 time
slot as shown in Figure 6a of Silberstein teaches "removing the image" of
10:30 "from the free list" of images of free time slots and "associating the
image" of 10:30 "with the user" within the meaning of claim 1.
Given that Figure 6a and paragraphs 79 and 86 of Silberstein cited by
the Examiner teach "removing the image" and "associating the image with
the user" as claimed, the Examiner's additional findings for leaving a queue
discussed in paragraph 70 of Silberstein are cumulative, and do not change
the fact that the Examiner's findings show Silberstein does in fact teach
"removing the image" and "associating the image with the user" as claimed.
6
Appeal2014-000439
Application 12/413,625
When asked about this at the hearing, this was Appellants' response:
MR. POLLACK: Well, I'm looking at -- I think if you look at -- if
you point to Silverstein, Figure 6 --
JUDGE SMITH: Yeah?
MR. POLLACK: -- those images are, first of all, not unique, so they
can't be used to summon a user. They can't be used to --
JUDGE SMITH: The image -- the date and time, each time slot is
umque.
MR. POLLACK: Right, the date and time --
JUDGE SMITH: Well, 10:00 in the morning --
MR. POLLACK: -- are unique, but they're not the images and they're
not used to summon the user and they're not chosen by a user.
JUDGE SMITH: I mean, you keep saying it's not an image, but I
look at Figure 6 and I see an image of 10:00. That's what I see in Figure 6. I
see Figure 6 showing me an image of 10:00.
MR. POLLACK: Right, but that -- you're correct. I mean, I would
say -- it does show 10:00, but I would say that's not a selection of an image
from among a plurality of images from a user, the user waiting in a queue.
JUDGE SMITH: The user --
MR. POLLACK: That again, you know, gets back to the number
versus image argument.
JUDGE SMITH: The user -- it's a selection of the 10:00, 10:30,
10:45. It's a selection from that list by the user.
MR. POLLACK: If the user can make an appointment, that's true, the
user can select 10:00. But again, I -- those aren't images.
Transcript pp. 13-14.
7
Appeal2014-000439
Application 12/413,625
Thus, Appellants' distinction between the images of time slots shown
in Silberstein and the "images" as claimed is that the images of time slots
shown in Silberstein are not images because they are numbers. However,
Appellants' claim 21 recites the "method of claim 1, wherein the image is
not alphanumeric." Given such an explicit limitation provided in dependent
claim 21, the broadest reasonable construction of the "image" recited in
claim 1 consistent with Appellants' Specification encompasses an
alphanumeric image. See Phillips v. AWH Corp., 415 F.3d 1303, 1314--15
(Fed. Cir. 2005) ("[T]he presence of a dependent claim that adds a particular
limitation gives rise to a presumption that the limitation in question is not
present in the independent claim."). Appellants' contention that the images
of time slots shown in Silberstein are not images is not commensurate with
the scope of the claim term "images" when read in light of claim 21 of
Appellants' Specification.
Appellants do not provide persuasive evidence or argument to
distinguish "removing the image from the free list" and "associating the
image with the user" as claimed from removing an image of 10: 3 0 from a
free list and associating the image of 10:30 with the user as taught by Figure
6a and paragraphs 79 and 86 of Silberstein.
Appellants contend Szeto does not teach an image "to indicate a
user's place in a queue" as recited in claim 1. App. Br. 5-7; Reply Br. 2.
The Examiner relies on Szeto and Silberstein to teach this limitation. Ans.
3--4, citing inter alia Silberstein Fig. 6a and i-f 79. Given that Figure 6a of
Silberstein shows a user's name next to the image of 10:30 "to indicate the
user's place in the queue" within the meaning of claim 1, the teachings of
Szeto are cumulative to Silberstein's teachings. Appellants have not
8
Appeal2014-000439
Application 12/413,625
persuasively distinguished an image "to indicate a user's place in a queue"
as recited in claim 1 from the image of 10:30 to indicate the user's place in
the queue as shown in Figure 6a of Silberstein.
Appellants contend Ahlstrom does not teach summoning a user from a
queue by displaying the selected image, because the customer is summoned
in queue number order, not by displaying an image. Reply Br. 3. However,
column 3, lines 6 through 13 of Ahlstrom teaches when it is a customer's
tum to be served, customer information such as the customer's signature or
picture is shown on a screen. Appellants' contention does not persuasively
distinguish "displaying the image on the display" to summon "the user from
the queue to receive a service" as recited in claim 1 from displaying an
image when it is the user's turn to be served as taught by Ahlstrom.
Appellants contend Ahlstrom does not allow the user to select the
image. See Reply Br. 3--4. However, the Examiner relies on Figure 6a and
paragraph 79 of Silberstein to teach the user selecting the image (Ans. 4--5),
and relies on Ahlstrom to teach displaying the image (Ans. 6-7). The
Examiner's additional findings that Ahlstrom teaches selecting an image are
cumulative. Even so, Appellants have not persuasively explained a
difference between a customer providing a signature or a picture to a service
provider as taught by Ahlstrom and a user selecting an image as claimed.
Appellants contend the Examiner's reason for combining the cited
prior art is flawed, because if the user, rather than the customer service
representative, selects the image, the effect would likely be to not help the
representative identify the customer. Reply Br. 4--5. Appellants' contention
is inconsistent with column 3 of Ahlstrom, which teaches a customer service
representative relying on a customer's picture or signature to identifY the
9
Appeal2014-000439
Application 12/413,625
customer. Displaying a customer's picture or signature as taught by column
3 of Ahlstrom, with an appointment time as taught by Figure 6a of
Silberstein, when it is the customer's tum to be served as taught by column 3
of Ahlstrom, yields the predictable result of identifying the customer to be
served as taught by Ahlstrom.
I would affirm the rejection of claim 1.
10