Ex Parte VernickDownload PDFPatent Trial and Appeal BoardMar 18, 201411770336 (P.T.A.B. Mar. 18, 2014) Copy Citation UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE 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 APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE FIRST NAMED INVENTOR ATTORNEY DOCKET NO. CONFIRMATION NO. 11/770,336 06/28/2007 Michael David VERNICK 3655/0344PUS1 6247 47827 7590 03/18/2014 Avaya by MUNCY, GEISSLER, OLDS & LOWE, PLLC 4000 LEGATO ROAD, SUITE 310 FAIRFAX, VA 22033 EXAMINER HAMMONDS, MARCUS C ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 2645 MAIL DATE DELIVERY MODE 03/18/2014 PAPER 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. PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07) UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE ________________ BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD ________________ Ex parte MICHAEL DAVID VERNICK 1 ________________ Appeal 2011-011364 Application 11/770,336 Technology Center 2600 ________________ Before, JOSEPH F. RUGGIERO, JASON V. MORGAN, and CATHERINE SHIANG, Administrative Patent Judges. MORGAN, 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 1–10, 12–28, 30–36, and 40–42. Claims 11, 29, and 37– 39 are cancelled. App. Br. 2. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). We AFFIRM. 1 Avaya, Inc., is the Real Party in Interest. App. Br. 1. Appeal 2011-011364 Application 11/770,336 2 Invention Appellant invented a method “for establishing a customer service transaction between a user and a customer service representative.” Spec., ¶ 5. The method “includes providing the user access to a customer service terminal having a user interface configured to permit the user to enter a customer ID associated with a mobile device of the user.” Id. The customer ID may be a mobile phone number. Id. at ¶ 4. A customer service representative receives location information and is selected based on location information. Id. at ¶ 34. Exemplary Claims Claims 1 and 19, reproduced below with disputed limitations emphasized, are representative: 1. A method for establishing a customer service transaction between a user and a customer service representative, the method comprising: providing the user access to a customer service terminal having a user interface configured to permit the user to enter a customer ID associated with a mobile device of the user; receiving the customer ID at the customer service terminal; transmitting the customer ID and location information associated with the customer service terminal to a customer service representative through a network operably coupled to the customer service terminal; initiating a customer service transaction between the user and the customer service representative and through the mobile device of the user, and providing the user with information based on the location of the customer service terminal. Appeal 2011-011364 Application 11/770,336 3 19. A system for establishing a customer service transaction between a user and a customer service representative, the system comprising: a customer service terminal comprising: a user interface configured to permit the user to enter a customer ID associated with a mobile device of the user, and a transmission device configured to transmit the customer ID to a customer service representative through a network operably coupled to the customer service terminal; and a customer service center comprising a server, operably connected to the customer service terminal through the network, wherein the customer service center is configured to determine location information associated with the customer service terminal, select a customer service representative based on the location information associated with the customer service terminal and automatically initiate a customer service transaction between the user and the customer service representative based on receipt of the customer ID from the customer service terminal and through a mobile device of the user. Rejections The Examiner rejects claims 1–10, 12–28, 30–36, and 40–42 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Nurminen (U.S. 2007/0093255 A1) and Dor (U.S. 2004/0127231 A1). Ans. 3–18. ISSUES 1. Did the Examiner err in finding that the combination of Nurminen and Dor teaches or suggests a “customer service center . . . configured to determine location information associated with the customer service Appeal 2011-011364 Application 11/770,336 4 terminal” and configured to “select a customer service representative based on the location information,” as recited in claim 19? 2. Did the Examiner err in finding that the combination of Nurminen and Dor teaches or suggests “providing the user with information based on the location of the customer service terminal,” as recited in claim 1? ANALYSIS Issue 1 (Claim 19) The Examiner finds the combination of Nurminen and Dor teaches or suggests a “customer service center . . . configured to determine location information associated with [a] customer service terminal.” Ans. 7. In particular, the Examiner finds that Nurminen’s user communication device 116 teaches or suggests the claimed customer service terminal while Dor teaches determining location information associated with such a customer service terminal. Id. at 5–8 (citing, e.g., Nurminen, Fig. 1; Dor, Fig. 1 and ¶¶ 0083–0087). The Examiner finds that Dor teaches selecting a customer service representative based on the location information associated with a customer service terminal. Ans. 7 (citing Dor, Fig. 1, ¶¶ 0072 and 0083– 0087). The Examiner concludes it would have been obvious to an artisan of ordinary skill to combine the teachings and suggestions of Dor and Nurminen “to provide added value to telecommunications base services through the use of location based parameters; thereby improving the quality of service provided.” Ans. 8 (citing Dor, ¶ 0015). Appellant contends that rather than relying on a reason articulated in the prior art, the Examiner has impermissibly relied on Appellant’s disclosure to combine the teachings of Dor and Nurminen. App. Br. 6–7. Appeal 2011-011364 Application 11/770,336 5 Specifically, Appellant contends that the Examiner has failed to provide a persuasive reason to modify Nurminen’s real estate viewing system with Dor’s location-based customer service. Id. However, the Examiner correctly finds that Dor explicitly teaches that its use of location-based parameters adds value to telecommunication-based services and improves the quality of service provided. Ans. 8 (citing Dor, ¶ 0015). Appellant contends the Examiner’s reasoning is insufficient to show that it would have been obvious to an artisan of ordinary skill to combine the teachings and suggestions of Nurminen and Dor. App. Br. 8. However, Appellant does not persuasively identify error in the Examiner’s reasoning—reasoning supported by an explicit disclosure in Dor. Ans. 8. Appellant also argues the combination or Nurminen and Dor is unreasonable because using the location of a real estate viewing device would undesirably connect the user with a real estate agent corresponding to the location of the device rather than the location of the property. Id. Appellant contends that such a result undermines the Examiner’s combination of Dor and Nurminen. Id. Appellant does not provide persuasive arguments or evidence showing that Nurminen’s example of a real estate viewing system discourages or leads away from using the location of a device to select a customer service representative. Thus, we disagree with Appellant that Dor and Nurminen were impermissibly combined. Furthermore, Appellant does not persuasively respond to the Examiner’s finding that Nurminen illustrates embodiments other than real estate viewing (e.g., an advertisement 310 involving a DVD-VHS player). Ans. 19 (citing Numinen, Fig. 3 and ¶¶ 0049–0059). Appellant merely argues that “nothing in the record suggests that the customer service Appeal 2011-011364 Application 11/770,336 6 representative who is going to provide information about the DVD-VHS player should be selected based on the location of the user’s computer – the same representative can provide information about the DVD-VHS player without regard to where the user is located.” Reply Br. 3. Appellant’s argument is not responsive to the Examiner’s use of the combined teachings and suggestions of Nurminen and Dor to show that selecting a customer service representative based on the location of a device would have been obvious to an artisan of ordinary skill. Ans. 7–8. For these reasons, we agree with the Examiner that the invention of claim 19 would have been obvious to an artisan of ordinary skill in light of the teachings of Nurminen and Dor. Id. at 5–8. Accordingly, we sustain the Examiner’s rejection under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) of claim 19, and of claims 20–28, 30–36, and 40–42, which are not argued separately. App. Br. 8–9. Issue 2 (Claim 1) The Examiner similarly rejects claim 1, further finding the combination of Nurminen and Dor teaches or suggests “providing the user with information based on the location of the customer service terminal,” as recited in claim 1. Ans. 15. Specifically, the Examiner finds that Dor teaches “other forms of information to provide to the communication terminal.” Final Rej. 9 (citing Dor ¶¶ 0090–0105 and 0111). The Examiner explains that Dor teaches providing location-based information regarding regional dangers to a user communication terminal. Ans. 15–16 (citing Dor, ¶¶ 0027–0033, 0087, and 0089–0105). Appellant contends the Examiner’s findings with respect to claim 1 do not establish a prima facie case of obviousness. App. Br. 9–10. Appeal 2011-011364 Application 11/770,336 7 Specifically, Appellant contends the Examiner’s rejection fails to adequately address the limitation regarding “providing the user with information based on the location of the customer service terminal,” as recited in claim 1. Id. We disagree. In the Final Rejection, the Examiner identified particular teachings of Dor regarding the communication of regional dangers to users based on user location. Final Rej. 9. The Examiner correctly cites these teachings as examples of providing location-based information to a user communication terminal. Ans. 15–16 (citing Dor, ¶¶ [0089]–[0105]). In relying on these teachings, the Examiner correctly articulates the scope and content of the prior art, showing that these findings teach or suggest the argued limitation of claim 1. Thus, we do not agree that the Examiner’s findings fail to establish a prima facie case for obviousness. Accordingly, we sustain the Examiner’s rejection under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) of claim 1, and of claims 2– 10 and 12–18, which are not argued separately. App. Br. 11. DECISION We affirm the Examiner’s decision to reject claims 1–10, 12–28, 30–36, and 40–42. 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 kis Copy with citationCopy as parenthetical citation