Ex Parte Swayambhu et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Sep 30, 2016

13150291 (P.T.A.B. Sep. 30, 2016)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE
13/150,291 06/01/2011
25537 7590 10/04/2016
VERIZON
PA TENT MANAGEMENT GROUP
1320 North Court House Road
9th Floor
ARLINGTON, VA 22201-2909
FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
Krithika Swayambhu
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.
20110230 2690
EXAMINER
RYAN, PATRICK A
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2427
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
10/04/2016 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):
patents@verizon.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte KRITHIKA SWAYAMBHU, AVEEK MUKHOPADHYAY,
SUMAN MUKHERJEE, VIJA Y PRABHU BASKARAN,
WBISH CHERIY AP ARAMBATH, and ANAND N. SANKARAN
Appeal2014-008815
Application 13/150,291
Technology Center 2400
Before CARLA M. KRIVAK, NABEEL U. KHAN, and
MICHAEL J. ENGLE, Administrative Patent Judges.
KRIVAK, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
Appellants appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from a final rejection of
claims 1-20. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We affirm-in-part.
Appeal2014-008815
Application 13/150,291
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Appellants' invention is directed to customer relationship
management (CRM) systems that "enhance the quality of service provided
by service providers as well as improve customer experience and
satisfaction" (Spec. i-f 1 ).
Independent claim 1, reproduced below, is exemplary of the subject
matter on appeal.
1. A method comprising:
storing, by a processor, information associating each
multimedia item, of a plurality of multimedia items, with one or
more respective personality characteristics of a plurality of
personality characteristics;
selecting, by the processor, one or more multimedia
items of the plurality of multimedia items;
receiving, by the processor and from a customer,
respective ratings of the selected one or more multimedia items;
identifying, by the processor, a personality type for the
customer based on:
the one or more respective personality
characteristics associated with each of the selected one or
more multimedia items, and
the respective ratings for the selected one or more
multimedia items; and
providing, by the processor, data identifying the
personality type for display to the customer.
REFERENCES and REJECTIONS
The Examiner rejected claims 1, 2, 4---6, 8 ,9, 12, 13, and 16-20 under
35 U.S.C. § 103(a) based upon the teachings of Ali (US 2002/0199194 Al;
Dec. 26, 2002) and Wood (US 2002/0045154 Al; Apr. 18, 2002).
2
Appeal2014-008815
Application 13/150,291
The Examiner rejected claims 3, 10, and 11under35 U.S.C. § 103(a)
based upon the teachings of Ali, Wood, and Gargi (US 6,918,132 B2; July
12, 2005).
The Examiner rejected claims 7, 14, and 15 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a)
based upon the teachings of Ali, Wood, and Carmony (US 2008/0154899
Al; June 26, 2008).
ANALYSIS
Appellants contend Ali is directed to receiving and determining
personal preferences and not personality characteristics for a user "regarding
particular programs and then using these preferences to predict the user's
opinion of other programs" (App. Br. 9-10). Appellants then contend Wood
discloses assessing users based on questions or scenarios associated with a
personality test that can be provided via multimedia (App. Br. 11 ).
Appellants then conclude Wood does not disclose "receiving a user's ratings
of videos and identifying a personality type for the user based on the ratings
and personality characteristics associated with the video," as required by
claim 1 (App. Br. 14). Thus, Appellants assert, Ali and Wood, alone or in
combination, do not teach or suggest Appellants' claimed invention as Ali
identifies a user's preferences and Wood identifies a user's personality type
(id.). Further, Appellants contend the Examiner has not discussed how
combining Ali and Wood would result in Appellants' invention (App. Br.
15). We do not agree.
We agree with and adopt the Examiner's findings as our own (Final
Act. 3-22; Advisory Act. 2--4; Ans. 2-6). We note, particularly, the
Examiner relies on Ali for all of the claimed limitations, including the step
3
Appeal2014-008815
Application 13/150,291
of receiving, from a customer, ratings of selected multimedia items (Ans. 3;
Ali i-fi-128, 31, 34, 90; see also i-fi-f 14, 80). However, the Examiner finds Ali
does not provide a personality type based on personality characteristics, but
finds Wood discloses this feature (Ans. 3; Wood i-fi-143, 45, 75, 170, 285).
Thus, Appellants are attacking the references separately and not as a
combination. Further, we find no error in the Examiner's findings. We also
note the Examiner has provided persuasive argument and reasoning for the
combination in the Final Action and Answer (Final Act. 5; Ans. 3--4).
We are not persuaded the Examiner's reading of the claims on the
cited combination of references is overly broad, unreasonable, or
inconsistent with Appellants' Specification. Thus, we find the weight of the
evidence supports the Examiner's ultimate legal conclusion of obviousness,
and sustain the Examiner's rejection of independent claims 1 and 9, which
Appellants argue are patentable for the same reasons, and dependent claims
2, 4--6, 12, 13, and 16 argued therewith (App. Br. 16).
With respect to claim 8, Appellants contend neither Ali nor Wood,
alone or in combination, disclose selecting another multimedia item
associated with a second personality characteristic (App. Br. 16-17).
Appellants assert Ali identifies and augments correlation scores for
predicting a rating for an item which has no relevance to the claimed
"selecting another multimedia item" (App. Br. 17). Further, Appellants
argue Wood groups questions into separate scales of two letter possibilities
to create 16 possible combinations, which does not disclose the selected
"other multimedia item is associated with a second personality
characteristic" (App. Br. 17-18). We agree at least with respect to Wood
and the Examiner's proposed combination of Ali and Wood.
4
Appeal2014-008815
Application 13/150,291
The portions of Wood the Examiner finds disclose these features
(Final Act. 7-8; Ans. 4--5), and the Examiner's proposed combination are
not persuasive. That is none of the cited portions of Ali and Wood teach or
suggest selecting another multimedia item "associated with a second
personality characteristic" as claimed (id.). Thus, we do not sustain the
Examiner's rejection of dependent claim 8.
With respect to independent claim 17, Appellants assert substantially
the same arguments as those presented with respect to claim 1 (App. Br. 19-
20). We, therefore, sustain the Examiner's rejection of claim 17.
DECISION
The Examiner's decision rejecting claims 1-7 and 9-20 is affirmed.
The Examiner's decision rejecting claim 8 is reversed.
No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with
this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a)(l )(iv).
AFFIRMED-IN-PART
5