Ex Parte Vernick

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Mar 18, 2014

11770336 (P.T.A.B. Mar. 18, 2014)

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