Ex Parte YOUNG et al

Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences

Mar 15, 2010

09363339 (B.P.A.I. Mar. 15, 2010)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
____________

BEFORE THE BOARD OF PATENT APPEALS
AND INTERFERENCES
____________

Ex parte TIMOTHY M. YOUNG, STEVEN J. CAPRIOTTI,
STEVEN LUZESKI, and BARBARA E. OSDER
____________

Appeal 2009-004941
Application 09/363,339
Technology Center 2600
____________

Decided: March 15, 2010
____________

Before MAHSHID D. SAADAT, CARLA M. KRIVAK,
and CARL W. WHITEHEAD, JR., Administrative Patent Judges.

SAADAT, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL
Appellants appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from a Final Rejection of
claims 1-25, which constitute all of the claims pending in this application.
We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We reverse.

Appeal 2009-004941
Application 09/363,339

2
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Appellants’ invention relates to a method of constructing a voice
messaging system application for efficient, inexpensive customization by
permitting a modular, base version of the voice messaging application to be
customized (Spec. 4:26-31). Claim 1, which is illustrative of the invention,
reads as follows:
1. A telephony-based messaging system application stored
on a computer readable medium for use by a particular customer,
comprising:

a module comprising call flow functions, code and a
customization list;

wherein the customization list comprises a table with a list of
names and a modifiable list of corresponding DTMF signal identifiers,
whereby the particular customer is permitted to change the mapping
between caller-entered DTMF signals and the corresponding actions
taken by the messaging system by modifying the list of DTMF signal
identifiers.

The Examiner relies on the following prior art in rejecting the claims:
Matthews US 4,652,700 Mar. 24, 1987
Sattar US 5,243,643 Sep. 7, 1993
Chencinski US 5,355,406 Oct. 11, 1994
Weber US 6,094,239 Jul. 25, 2000

Claims 1, 2, 8-15, 17, 18, and 20-24 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C.
§ 102(b) as being anticipated by Sattar.
Claims 3-5 and 19 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Sattar and Matthews.
Claims 6 and 7 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Sattar, Matthews, and Weber.
Appeal 2009-004941
Application 09/363,339

3
Claims 16 and 25 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Sattar and Chencinski.1
Rather than repeat the arguments here, we make reference to the
Briefs and the Answer for the respective positions of Appellants and the
Examiner.
ISSUE
Appellants argue that independent claims 1 and 17 are not anticipated
by Sattar because Sattar does not teach or suggest mapping DTMF (digital
tone multi frequency) signal identifiers to specific modules, as claimed
(App. Br. 24). Instead, Sattar stores the DTMF signal mapping in the
software listing of Appendix A where a listing of vectors is used to control
caller interfaces to the voicemail system (id.).
Therefore, Appellants’ contentions present the following issue:
Under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b), does Sattar teach or suggest changing the
mapping between caller-entered DTMF signals and the corresponding
actions taken by the system by modifying the list of DTMF signal
identifiers, as recited in claim 1?

FINDINGS OF FACT
1. Appellants’ Specification defines call flows as the logical flow
of the application interface to the caller, whereas functions represent the
software building blocks used to implement the desired call flow
functionality. (Spec. 7:3-9.)

1 The final rejection of claims 1 and 17 under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) as
being anticipated by Juster (US Patent No. US 5,724,406, issued Mar. 3,
1998) has been withdrawn in the Examiner’s Answer. See Ans. 3 and 9.
Appeal 2009-004941
Application 09/363,339

4
2. Sattar discloses a telecommunications system where, as
depicted in Figure 1, the user activates the vector protocol stored on the
relational database 60 while the interface 50 translates the user command
into standard query recognizable by the computer as it communicates with
the database 60. (Abstract; col. 9, ll. 14-27.)
3. Sattar provides system functions related to voice transaction
events at a handset, such as recording or playing the voice messages, and
prompting the user to either activate another vector or end his/her
communications with the system. (Col. 9, ll. 52-61.)
4. Sattar further discloses that the Application State Logic Table
(AST) is compiled, rather than used in the source code, based on the stored
vectors. The vectors comprise a number of routines such as “play a
message” or “record a message,” etc. (Col. 11, l. 66 – col. 12, l. 10.)
5. As shown in Figure 3 of Sattar, the runtime executive (RTX)
block 460 provides the main control processes for voice processing by
executing instructions stored in an AST block 470. (Col. 14, l. 52 - col. 15,
l. 1.)
6. Sattar discloses that the AST information is generated by a 4GL
application editor (APE) which allows application developers to arrange the
required vectors to formulate the applications desired by the customer or by
a GUI application editor (APEX) which is a formatted interactive
development program. (Col. 15, ll. 1-13.)

PRINCIPLES OF LAW
A rejection for anticipation requires that the four corners of a single
prior art document describe every element of the claimed invention, either
Appeal 2009-004941
Application 09/363,339

5
expressly or inherently, such that a person of ordinary skill in the art could
practice the invention without undue experimentation. See Atlas Powder
Co. v. IRECO, Inc., 190 F.3d 1342, 1347 (Fed. Cir. 1999); In re Paulsen, 30
F.3d 1475, 1478-79 (Fed. Cir. 1994).

ANALYSIS
The Examiner found that the claimed call flow functions are computer
codes stored in a standard module, which is consistent with Appellants’
Specification describing a module as a standard module (Ans. 10). In
particular, the Examiner relied on page 17 of Appellants’ Specification
stating that a module for a specific customer is a standard module
“compiled” with the appropriate customization list to conclude that
Appellants’ “call flow functions” are the same as “functions” (id.).
Appellants contend that the DTMF signal mapping in Sattar is stored
in the software listing shown in Appendix A of Sattar where a listing of
vectors are used to control caller interfaces to the voicemail system (App.
Br. 24). Appellants assert that this approach is different from the claimed
invention where the DTMF signal identifiers are mapped to specific
modules, each with a specific function, and remapping DTMF signals only
needs modifying the Customization List (id.).
After reviewing Sattar, we agree with Appellants’ position that this
reference does not teach or suggest changing the mapping between caller-
entered DTMF signals and the corresponding actions taken by the system by
modifying the list of DTMF signal identifiers, as recited in claim 1. As
pointed out by Appellants (Reply Br. 5), Sattar uses vectors as software
programs for communicating the user’s commands to the database (FF 2)
Appeal 2009-004941
Application 09/363,339

6
and providing functions such as recording or playing voice messages as well
as prompting the user (FF 3). Therefore, we agree with Appellants (Reply
Br. 5) that the claimed call flow functions define the logical flow of
functions in the messaging application and are not the same as the vectors in
Sattar (FF 1 and 3).
Additionally, we disagree with the Examiner’s characterization of the
claimed call flow functions as computer codes or that the customization list
may include functions (Ans. 10). As argued by Appellants (Reply Br. 6-7),
the vectors listed in Appendix A of Sattar provide no mapping between the
caller-entered DTMF signals and the corresponding actions taken by the
system since the DTMF signals hardcoded in the vectors of Sattar can not be
modified without substantial changes to the call flows (See FF 4-6).
We also disagree with the Examiner’s position (Ans. 11) that, because
the claims do not require that the DTMF values of the customization list be
stored separately from the call flow functions or the customization list is not
hardcoded, the vectors list of Sattar meets the claimed change in DTMF
mapping by modifying the list of DTMF signal identifiers. Even if the
DTMF values and the call flow functions are stored together, the claimed
requirement that “the particular customer is permitted to change the mapping
between caller-entered DTMF signals and the corresponding actions taken
by the messaging system by modifying the list of DTMF signal identifiers”
requires control over both the mapping between the DTMF signals and the
corresponding actions. See claim 1. As discussed above, the Examiner has
not adequately explained how the vectors listed in Appendix A of Sattar
meet the claimed customization list allowing the user to modify the DTMF
mapping without changing the vectors.
Appeal 2009-004941
Application 09/363,339

7
CONCLUSION
On the record before us, we find that Sattar does not teach or suggest
changing the mapping between caller-entered DTMF signals and the
corresponding actions taken by the system by modifying the list of DTMF
signal identifiers, as recited in claim 1. Therefore, in view of our analysis
above, the 35 U.S.C. § 102 rejection of claims 1, 2, 8-15, 17, 18, and 20-24
as anticipated by Sattar cannot be sustained. Additionally, we do not sustain
the 35 U.S.C. § 103 rejection of claims 3-7, 16, 19, and 25 over Sattar in
view of Matthews, Weber, or Chencinski as the Examiner has not identified
any teachings in these references to cure the deficiency of Sattar.

ORDER
The decision of the Examiner rejecting claims 1-25 is reversed.

REVERSED

ke

UNISYS CORPORATION
UNISYS WAY
MAIL STATION: E8-114
BLUE BELL, PA 19424