2019006947 (P.T.A.B. May. 24, 2021)

QUALTRICS, LLC

Patent Trials and Appeals BoardMay 24, 2021

2019006947 (P.T.A.B. May. 24, 2021)

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. 14/985,355 12/30/2015 Bindu Rama Rao 20055.107.2.1.1 3539 151970 7590 05/24/2021 Keller Jolley Preece / Qualtrics 1010 North 500 East Suite 210 North Salt Lake, UT 84054 EXAMINER TORRES, MARCOS L ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 2647 NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE 05/24/2021 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): docketing@kjpip.com kpreece@kjpip.com ljohnson@kjpip.com PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07) UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE ____________ BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD ____________ Ex parte BINDU RAMA RAO ____________ Appeal 2019-006947 Application 14/985,355 Technology Center 2600 ____________ Before ERIC S. FRAHM, JOHNNY A. KUMAR, and CATHERINE SHIANG, Administrative Patent Judges. SHIANG, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL Appellant1 appeals under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Examiner’s rejection of claims 1–3 and 5–21, which are all the claims pending and rejected in the application. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). We reverse. 1 We use “Appellant” to refer to “applicant” as defined in 37 C.F.R. § 1.42. Appellant identifies Qualtrics, LLC as the real party in interest. Appeal Br. 1. Appeal 2019-006947 Application 14/985,355 2 STATEMENT OF THE CASE Introduction The present invention relates “to the ability to browse through a multi- step process or activity using a mobile handset such as a cell phone.” Spec. 2:8–10. In particular, the invention addresses the issue of using a mobile device to respond to surveys or questionnaires: surveys or questionnaires that are created for Internet based access via a PC are not appropriate for cell phone access. Asking one or more detailed questions with information on how to answer them is possible on a web page that is accessed from a PC. However, the same web page would be unmanageable and difficult to browse and navigate on a cell phone with a small LCD screen and small keyboard for user input. Id. at 4:11–15. Claim 1 is exemplary, with emphasis added: 1. A method comprising: receiving a request to access an electronic questionnaire from a mobile device operated by a user, the electronic questionnaire available for presentation within both a web browser and a mobile-client-software component; determining, by at least one processor, that the mobile device comprises the mobile-client-software component as client software, wherein the mobile-client-software component, when installed on and executed by the mobile device, causes the mobile device to present one or more display screens for electronic questionnaires; accessing, by at least one processor, the electronic questionnaire, the electronic questionnaire comprising a task tree that comprises a plurality of tasks for the electronic questionnaire that are mapped to one or more subtasks comprising questions for the electronic questionnaire, wherein the subtasks are mapped to the plurality of tasks; providing, to the mobile device, a task from the plurality of tasks for presentation within a first display screen of the mobile-client-software component upon the mobile device Appeal 2019-006947 Application 14/985,355 3 executing the mobile-client-software component as client software, wherein: the task comprises a first question of the electronic questionnaire; the task is mapped to a first subtask associated with a first response to the first question, the first subtask comprising a second question of the electronic questionnaire; the task is mapped to a second subtask associated with a second response to the first question, the second subtask comprising a third question of the electronic questionnaire;receiving, from the mobile device via the mobile-client-software component, an indication of a user input with respect to the task, the user input comprising the first response in reply to the first question; based on receiving the first response in reply to the first question, determining, by the at least one processor, to provide the user the first subtask that is mapped to the task within the task tree and that is associated with the first response; and based on the determination to provide the user the first subtask, providing, to the mobile device, the first subtask for presentation within a second display screen of the mobile-client-software component upon the mobile device executing the mobile-client-software component as client software. References and Rejection2 Claims Rejected 35 U.S.C. § References 1–3, 5–21 103(a) Egli (US 2003/0110234 A1, June 12, 2003), Malik (US 2004/0044559 A1, Mar. 3, 2004), Raciborski (US 2005/0131983 A1, June 16, 2005) 2 Throughout this opinion, we refer to the (1) Non-Final Office Action dated Nov. 16, 2028 (“Non-Final Act.”); (2) Appeal Brief dated May 7, 2019 Appeal 2019-006947 Application 14/985,355 4 ANALYSIS Obviousness3 We have reviewed the Examiner’s rejection in light of Appellant’s contentions and the evidence of record. We concur with Appellant’s contentions that the Examiner erred in determining the cited portions of Egli and Raciborski collectively teach “receiving a request to access an electronic questionnaire from a mobile device operated by a user, the electronic questionnaire available for presentation within both a web browser and a mobile-client-software component,” as recited in claim 1 (emphasis added). See Appeal Br. 9–11; Reply Br. 9–10. The Examiner cites Raciborski’s paragraphs 4, 5, and 20 for teaching the claimed “mobile-client-software component.” See Non-Final Act. 7;4 Ans. 5. In particular, the Examiner finds Raciborski’s “appropriate application” teaches the claimed “mobile-client-software component.” See Non-Final Act. 7; Ans. 5; Raciborski ¶ 4 (“Modern browsers such as INTERNET EXPLORER™ 6 (IE6) by MICROSOFT™ have been optimized to automatically detect the types of downloaded objects off the Internet, for the purposes of selecting the most appropriate application to execute the downloaded content.”). However, the Examiner does not provide sufficient finding or mapping about the claimed “a web browser,” (“Appeal Br.”); (3) Examiner’s Answer dated July 22, 2019 (“Ans.”); and (4) Reply Brief dated Sept. 23, 2019 (“Reply Br.”). 3 Appellant raises additional arguments. Because the identified issue is dispositive of the appeal, we do not address the additional arguments. 4 The Examiner also cites Egli’s paragraph 59, but does not explain what disclosure from that paragraph teaches the claimed “mobile-client-software component.” See Non-Final Act. 5. Appeal 2019-006947 Application 14/985,355 5 and does not reasonably explain why the cited prior art portions teach “both a web browser and a mobile-client-software component,” as required by claim 1. As a result, we agree with Appellant that the Examiner has not shown the cited prior art portions teach “receiving a request to access an electronic questionnaire from a mobile device operated by a user, the electronic questionnaire available for presentation within both a web browser and a mobile-client-software component,” as recited in claim 1 (emphasis added). See Appeal Br. 9–11; Reply Br. 9–10. Because the Examiner fails to provide sufficient evidence or explanation to support the rejection, we are constrained by the record to reverse the Examiner’s rejection of independent claim 1, and independent claims 11 and 17 for similar reasons. We also reverse the Examiner’s rejections of corresponding dependent claims 2, 3, 5–10, 12–16, and 18–21. CONCLUSION We reverse the Examiner’s decision rejecting claims 1–3 and 5–21 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a). In summary: Claims Rejected 35 U.S.C. § Reference(s)/Basis Affirmed Reversed 1–3, 5–21 103(a) Egli, Malik, Raciborski 1–3, 5–21 REVERSED