Ex Parte Vasquez et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Oct 28, 2016

12881615 (P.T.A.B. Oct. 28, 2016)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE
12/881,615 09/14/2010
25537 7590 11/01/2016
VERIZON
PA TENT MANAGEMENT GROUP
1320 North Court House Road
9th Floor
ARLINGTON, VA 22201-2909
FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
Juan Vasquez
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.
20100310 1380
EXAMINER
WU, TSUNG YIN
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2454
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
11/01/2016 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 JUAN VASQUEZ and PRASHANT DESAI
Appeal2015-005793
Application 12/881,615
Technology Center 2400
Before ALLEN R. MacDONALD, DAVID J. CUTITT A II, and
MICHAEL J. ENGLE, Administrative Patent Judges.
MacDONALD, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
Appeal2015-005793
Application 12/881,615
STATEMENT OF CASE
Appellants appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from a rejection of claims
1-25. Final Act. 1. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
Exemplary Claim
Exemplary claim 1 under appeal reads as follows (bracketing and
emphases added):
1. A computer-implemented method comprising:
[(A)] receiving, from a first user device and in response
to the first user device receiving a request from a user to
initiate a session, one or more session control protocol
messages to establish the session between a workstation
and a second user device different than the first user
device, wherein the one or more session control protocol
messages include context information indicating a context
for establishing the session and an identifier of the second
user device;
[(B)] forwarding information regarding the context for
establishing the session to the workstation;
[(C)] displaying the information regarding the context for
establishing the session on a display for an operator of the
workstation;
[(D)] establishing a unidirectional session between the
workstation and the first user device;
[ (E)] receiving, from the first user device and based on
the unidirectional session, a message to transfer the
workstation to the second user device, wherein the
message includes the identifier of the second user device;
and
[(F)] establishing, based on receiving the message, the
session between the workstation and the second user
device, wherein media in the session does not pass through
the first user device.
2
Appeal2015-005793
Application 12/881,615
Rejections
The Examiner rejected claims 1-3, 5, 7, 8, 11, 13-18, 20, 22, and 23
under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over the combination of
Lorenz et al. (US 2005/0039214 Al) and Bruce et al. (US 2008/0104630
Al). 1
The Examiner rejected claims 4, 6, 9, 10, 12, 19, 21, 24, and 25 under
35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over various combinations of
Lorenz, Bruce, and other references.2
Appellants' Contentions
1. Appellants contend that the Examiner erred in rejecting claim 1
under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) because:
LORENZ and BRUCE do not disclose receiving, from a first
user device and based on a unidirectional session between a
workstation and the first user device, a message to transfer the
workstation to a second user device, wherein the message
includes an identifier of the second user device.
App. Br. 9.
1 Claims 1, 7, 8, and 20 are separately argued. Separate patentability is not
argued for claims 2, 3, 5, 11, 13-18, 22, and 23. As to claims (11 and 16),
22, and 23, Appellants respectively reference the arguments of claims 1, 7,
and 8. This fails to constitute arguments for separate patentability. Except
for our ultimate decision, claims 2, 3, 5, 11, 13-18, 22, and 23 are not
discussed further herein.
2 Separate patentability is not argued for claims 4, 6, 9, 10, 12, 19, 21, 24,
and 25. Thus, the rejections of these claims tum on our decision as to
claim 1. Except for our ultimate decision, these claims are not discussed
further herein.
3
Appeal2015-005793
Application 12/881,615
2. Appellants also contend that the Examiner erred in rejecting claim 1
under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) because:
BRUCE cannot correspond to the unidirectional session of claim
1, as alleged in the final Office Action, because claim 1 recites
that the unidirectional session is between the workstation and the
first user device. In contrast, the call of BRUCE is between the
contact (which the final Office Action alleges corresponds to the
workstation) and the communication server. BRUCE does not
disclose or suggest that the call is between the contact and the
set-top box, as would be required by BRUCE based on the final
Office Action's interpretation. Therefore, these sections of
BRUCE cannot disclose or suggest receiving, from the first user
device and based on a unidirectional session between a
workstation and a first user device, a message to transfer the
workstation to a second user device, wherein the message
includes the identifier of the second user device, as recited in
claim 1.
App. Br. 10.
3. Appellants also contend that the Examiner erred in rejecting claim 1
under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) because:
Even if the call to the contact center of BRUCE could be
construed as corresponding to the unidirectional session of claim
1 (a point with which Appellants do not agree for at least the
reasons given above), the selection of the user's phone in
BRUCE cannot correspond to the message to transfer the
workstation to the second user device of claim 1, as further
alleged by the final Office Action.
App. Br. 10-11.
4. Appellants contend that the Examiner erred in rejecting claim 1
under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) because:
BRUCE does not disclose that the selection of the user phone
includes a message to transfer a workstation to a second user
device. Instead, the selection of BRUCE merely includes the
identifier of a user phone and does not include a message to
4
Appeal2015-005793
Application 12/881,615
transfer the call. Therefore, these sections of BRUCE do not
disclose or suggest receiving, from the first user device and based
on a unidirectional session between a workstation and a first user
device, a message to transfer the workstation to a second user
device, wherein the message includes the identifier of the second
user device, as recited in claim 1.
Further with regard to the above feature of claim 1, at page
2, the Advisory Action alleges that "when a communication is
sent from the workstation to a second user device, it satisfies the
claimed language." Appellants disagree with this allegation.
Claim 1 recites "establishing a unidirectional session
between the workstation and the first user device; [and]
receiving, from the first user device and based on the
unidirectional session, a message to transfer the workstation to
the second user device, wherein the message includes the
identifier of the second user device." Therefore, the message to
transfer the work station to the second user device is received
based on the unidirectional session between the workstation and
the first user device. Any communication will not satisfy the
claim language, as alleged by the Advisory Action. Instead, the
communication must be established based on receiving a
message to transfer a workstation to a second user device and the
message must be received based on establishing a unidirectional
session between a workstation and a first user device, as recited
in claim 1.
App. Br. 11-12, emphasis omitted.
5. Appellants also contend that the Examiner erred in rejecting claim 7
under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) because:
These [cited] sections of LORENZ disclose a two-way video
session and do not disclose or suggest a unidirectional video
session to the first user device. Instead, these sections
specifically disclose that both the support center and the set-top
box simultaneously send and receive signals. Therefore, these
sections of LORENZ do not disclose that the unidirectional
session includes a unidirectional video session to the first user
device, as recited in claim 7. Accordingly, LORENZ actually
teaches away from the above feature of claim 7. Therefore,
5
Appeal2015-005793
Application 12/881,615
because the disclosure of LORENZ teaches away from the
invention of claim 7, LORENZ (like BRUCE) does not even
suggest the above-recited feature of the claim.
App. Br. 13, Appellants' emphasis omitted, Panel emphasis added.
6. Appellants also contend that the Examiner erred in rejecting claim 8
under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a):
Because LORENZ discloses a two-way communication channel,
LORENZ cannot disclose a unidirectional audio voice session to
the first user device. Accordingly, LORENZ actually teaches
away from the above feature of claim 8. Therefore, because the
disclosure of LORENZ teaches away from the invention of claim
8, LORENZ does not even suggest the above-recited feature of
the claim.
App. Br. 15, Appellants' emphasis omitted, Panel emphasis added.
7. Appellants also contend that the Examiner erred in rejecting claim
20 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) because:
Although LORENZ discloses that the STB identifies the support
center, LORENZ does not disclose or suggest that the STB
selects one of a plurality of workstations corresponding to the
support technicians at the support center, as would be required
by claim 20. Identifying a support center in no way corresponds
to selecting one of a plurality of workstations. Therefore, the
STB of LORENZ cannot correspond to the automatic call
distributor of claim 20, as alleged by the final Office Action. As
such, LORENZ does not disclose the above feature of claim 20.
LORENZfurther does not suggest this feature.
App. Br. 17-18, Appellants' emphasis omitted, Panel emphasis added.
6
Appeal2015-005793
Application 12/881,615
Issues on Appeal
Did the Examiner err in rejecting claims 1, 7, 8, and 20 as being
obvious?
ANALYSIS
We have reviewed the Examiner's rejections in light of Appellants'
arguments (Appeal Brief and Reply Brief) that the Examiner has erred. We
disagree with Appellants' conclusions. Except as noted below, we adopt as
our own ( 1) the findings and reasons set forth by the Examiner in the action
from which this appeal is taken and (2) the reasons set forth by the Examiner
in the Examiner's Answer in response to Appellants' Appeal Brief. We
concur with the conclusions reached by the Examiner. We highlight the
following additional points.
As to Appellants' above contention 4, we disagree. We do not find
where Appellants actually explain the cited claim language and why that
limitation is not disclosed or suggested by the cited prior art. 3 Rather,
Appellants merely recite the language of claim 1 and assert the cited prior art
reference does not disclose or suggest the claim limitations. Without more,
this fails to constitute a sufficient argument on the merits. See 37 C.F.R.
§ 41.37(c)(l)(iv); In re Lovin, 652 F.3d 1349, 1357 (Fed. Cir. 2011).
3 In addition, we have reviewed Appellants' Specification and are unable to
discern any disclosure which aids in construing the particular recited
sequence of claim 1 "establishing," "receiving," and "establishing" steps as
now argued. That is, Appellants' Specification does not assist in converting
Appellants' assertion into a particularized argument.
7
Appeal2015-005793
Application 12/881,615
As to Appellants' above contentions 5 and 6, we disagree. Appellants
assert that the two-way (bidirectional) session of Lorenz teaches away from
the unidirectional session of the claimed invention. App. Br. 12-15. As the
United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit has counseled:
A reference may be said to teach away when a person of ordinary
skill, upon reading the reference, would be discouraged from
following the path set out in the reference, or would be led in a
direction divergent from the path that was taken by the applicant.
... [I]n general, a reference will teach away if it suggests that the
line of development flowing from the reference's disclosure is
unlikely to be productive of the result sought by the applicant.
In re Gurley, 27 F.3d 551, 553 (Fed. Cir. 1994). Appellants have not
attempted to persuade us, as to the argued limitation (unidirectional session),
that any of the references suggest that the line of development flowing from
the references' disclosure is unlikely to be productive of the result sought by
the Appellants. "A reference does not teach away, however, if it merely
expresses a general preference for an alternative invention but does not
criticize, discredit, or otherwise discourage investigation into the invention
claimed." DePuy Spine, Inc. v. Medtronic Sofamor Danek, Inc., 567 F.3d
1314, 1327 (Fed. Cir. 2009) (quotation omitted). Here, Appellants at most
have merely stated what the prior art discloses (App. Br. 12-15), but have
not identified any way in which that criticizes, discredits, or otherwise
discourages the claimed limitation. At most, Appellants have simply argued
that Lorenz does not teach the limitation. Even if we agree, that is not
sufficient to "teach away" from using the limitation. 4
4 Although not necessary for our decision and even in light of contrary
statements in Appellants' Specification (i-f 54), we note that an artisan seeing
the two-way (bidirectional) session taught by Lorenz would immediately
8
Appeal2015-005793
Application 12/881,615
As to Appellants' above contention 7, Appellants acknowledge,
"LORENZ discloses that, upon receiving a control signal, the STB identifies
a support center associated with content being displayed." App. Br. 17.
Further, we agree with the Examiner that "identifying" an appropriate
support center out of a plurality of support centers equates to "selecting" a
support center. Id.; Lorenz i-fi-137-38, FIG. 1. Appellants contend that this
does not in tum render obvious selecting one of a plurality of workstations at
the support center. App. Br. 17, line 1. We disagree. As the Examiner
points out, "identifying a support center ... is equivalent to say[ing] that a
group of a plurality of workstations corresponding to the support technicians
are selected." Ans. 33. We agree. Appellants also argue the Examiner errs
because the prior art does not show selecting a "particular" workstation. We
disagree as the claim does not recite "particular" or any other similarly
limiting term. Moreover, Lorenz does connect the user with one technician
at the selected support center. Lorenz i-fi-140, 37. Whether the selection of a
specific technician is based on additional factors (e.g., availability) does not
change the fact that the selection of the technician is based at least in part on
the context information (i.e., because the range of technicians is limited to
those within the selected support center). The broadest reasonable
interpretation of "based on the context information" is not "solely and
exclusively based on the context information."
recognize that in the prior art such a session is implemented in one of two
forms, either full duplex or half duplex. Half-duplex is two unidirectional
sessions in opposite directions where only one direction can be used at a
time. On this basis alone, Lorenz provides more than a sufficient suggestion
of the claim limitation.
9
Appeal2015-005793
Application 12/881,615
CONCLUSIONS
(1) The Examiner has not erred in rejecting claims 1-25 as being
unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a).
(2) Claims 1-25 are not patentable.
DECISION
The Examiner's rejections of claims 1-25 are 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)(l )(iv).
AFFIRMED
10