Ex Parte Shtivelman

Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences

Sep 30, 2004

09457608 (B.P.A.I. Sep. 30, 2004)

The opinion in support of the decision being entered today was not written for
publication and is not binding precedent of the Board.
Paper No. 33
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
____________
BEFORE THE BOARD OF PATENT APPEALS
AND INTERFERENCES
____________
Ex parte YURI SHTIVELMAN
____________
Appeal No. 2004-1095
Application No. 09/457,608
____________
ON BRIEF
____________
Before BARRETT, GROSS, and BARRY, Administrative Patent Judges.
GROSS, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
This is a decision on appeal from the examiner's final
rejection of claims 1 through 18, which are all of the claims
pending in this application.
Appellant's invention relates to a method for aiding an
agent in a hosted communication session. The method includes
comparing an incoming query to queries stored in a database, and
if there is a match, providing the stored response to the agent
to use in responding to the query. Claim 1 is illustrative of
the claimed invention, and it reads as follows:
Appeal No. 2004-1095
Application No. 09/457,608
2
1. A method for aiding a live agent in a hosted communication
session wherein agents participate in and host chat room
communication sessions on the Internet, comprising steps of:
(a) accessing an incoming query to an agent-hosted chat
session by a comparison system;
(b) comparing the incoming query with queries in a database
having stored queries matched with stored responses; and
(c) in the case of a match, providing the stored response to
the live agent for use in responding to the incoming query.
The prior art reference of record relied upon by the
examiner in rejecting the appealed claims is:
Busey et al. (Busey) 6,377,944 Apr. 23, 2002
(filed Dec. 11, 1998)
Claims 1 through 18 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 102(e)
as being anticipated by Busey.
Reference is made to the Examiner's Answer (Paper No. 31,
mailed December 17, 2003) for the examiner's complete reasoning
in support of the rejection, and to appellant's Brief (Paper
No. 30, filed November 26, 2003) for the appellant's arguments
thereagainst.
OPINION
We have carefully considered the claims, the applied prior
art reference, and the respective positions articulated by
Appeal No. 2004-1095
Application No. 09/457,608
3
appellant and the examiner. As a consequence of our review, we
will reverse the anticipation rejection of claims 1 through 18.
"It is axiomatic that anticipation of a claim under § 102
can be found only if the prior art reference discloses every
element of the claim." In re King, 801 F.2d 1324, 1326, 231 USPQ
136, 138 (Fed. Cir. 1986). See also Lindemann Maschinenfabrik
GMBH v. American Hoist and Derrick, 730 F.2d 1452, 1458, 221 USPQ
481, 485 (Fed. Cir. 1984).
Independent claim 1 requires, in pertinent part, a live
agent, comparing an incoming query to stored queries, and
providing the result of the comparison to the live agent for the
agent to use in responding to the query. Independent claim 10
similarly recites a system that compares an incoming query to
stored queries and provides the result of the comparison to an
agent for the agent to use in responding to the incoming query.
Appellant asserts (Brief, pages 10-11) that in Busey the WRU,
which compares an incoming query to a database, works
independently from the WebACD, where customers have contact with
an agent. We agree.
Appeal No. 2004-1095
Application No. 09/457,608
4
Busey discloses (column 6, lines 45-63) that there are three
distinct subsystems, the Web Response Unit (WRU), WebACD and
Communications Interface Unit (CIU). "The WRU allows a customer
to obtain information independently, such as by querying a
database, compilation of Frequently Asked Questions (FAQ) or
other information source" (column 6, lines 51-54). If the
customer cannot obtain a satisfactory answer through the WRU,
then the customer may be connected to a live agent through the
WebACD. In other words, the WRU compares the query to queries
stored in a database and provides the results of the comparison
directly to the customer. It is only after receiving
unsatisfactory results that the customer has any contact with the
live agent.
Busey (column 9, lines 14-24) further explains the functions
of the WRU. In particular, Busey states (column 9, lines 14-15)
that the WRU "allows a customer to receive information in the
form of 'self-help.'" Busey explains that the customer is
provided with query mechanisms that do not require any assistance
from a human agent. Busey discloses (column 9, line 56-column
Appeal No. 2004-1095
Application No. 09/457,608
5
10, line 2) that the Self Help Server (SHS) submits the query to
various databases and if an answer is found, the SHS displays the
answer to the customer. Busey states (column 10, lines 23-25)
that if a customer is not satisfied with the results of the
database search, "the customer is given the opportunity to
request agent assistance." In other words, Busey queries
databases, disp lays the result to the customer, and then the
customer contacts a live agent. Thus, part (c) of claim 1 and
the last part of claim 10, in which the match is provided to the
live agent for use in answering the query are not disclosed by
Busey. Since Busey does not disclose every element of claims 1
and 10, we cannot sustain the anticipation rejection of claims 1
and 10 nor of their dependents, claims 2 through 9 and 11 through
18.
Appeal No. 2004-1095
Application No. 09/457,608
6
CONCLUSION
The decision of the examiner rejecting claim 1 through 18
under 35 U.S.C. § 102(e) is reversed.
REVERSED
LEE E. BARRETT )
Administrative Patent Judge )
)
)
)
) BOARD OF PATENT
ANITA PELLMAN GROSS ) APPEALS
Administrative Patent Judge ) AND
) INTERFERENCES
)
)
)
LANCE LEONARD BARRY )
Administrative Patent Judge )
APG/vsh
Appeal No. 2004-1095
Application No. 09/457,608
7
CENTRAL COAST PATENT AGENCY
PO BOX 187
AROMAS, CA 95004