Ex Parte Maddison

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Oct 12, 2018

14678076 (P.T.A.B. Oct. 12, 2018)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE
14/678,076 04/03/2015
88087 7590 10/16/2018
Fritzsche Patent
c/o Buchanan Ingersoll & Rooney PC (SEN)
P. 0. Box 1404
Alexandria, VA 22313-1404
FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
Paul Maddison
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.
2009P03652US01-896 2732
EXAMINER
OPSASNICK, MICHAEL N
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2658
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
10/16/2018 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):
ADIPDOC 1@BIPC.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte PAUL MADDISON1
Appeal2017-001730
Application 14/678,07 6
Technology Center 2600
Before ROBERT E. NAPPI, KARA L. SZPONDOWSKI, and
SCOTT B. HOWARD, Administrative Patent Judges.
SZPONDOWSKI, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
Appellant appeals under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Examiner's
Final Rejection of claims 21--40. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C.
§ 6(b ). Oral arguments were heard on September 27, 2018. A transcript of
the hearing will be added to the record in due course. We have jurisdiction
under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b ).
We AFFIRM-IN-PART.
1 According to Appellant, the real party in interest is Unify GmbH & Co. KG,
which was formerly known as Siemens Enterprise Communications GmbH & Co.
KG. See Appeal Br. 1.
Appeal2017-001730
Application 14/678,076
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Appellant's invention is directed to a method and system to
automatically change or update the configuration or setting of a
communication system. Spec. 1. Claim 21, reproduced below, is exemplary
of the claimed subject matter:
21. A method for automatically changing or updating a
configuration or setting of a first communication system
compnsmg:
providing first information to the first communication
system via a first user interface, the information comprising
natural human language posted via use of the first user interface
of the first communication system;
storing the first information in a digital storage device;
detecting at least one context sensitive trigger in the first
information via at least one context trigger mechanism based on
the natural human language of the first information;
associating a change in a configuration or setting
information of a second communication system that is
configured to provide a service to a user of the first user
interface with the at least one detected context sensitive trigger;
and
changing the configuration or setting information of the
second communication system automatically in response to the
detected at least one context sensitive trigger using a processor,
such change being the change associated with the detected
context sensitive trigger.
REJECTIONS
Claims 21, 22, 24--32, and 34--40 stand rejected under pre-AIA
2
Appeal2017-001730
Application 14/678,076
35 U.S.C. § 102(b) as being anticipated by Weider et al. (2007 /0050191 Al;
published Mar. 1, 2007) ("Weider").
Claims 23 and 33 stand rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. § I03(a) as
being unpatentable over the combination of Weider and Ting et al. (US
2008/0301816 Al; published Dec. 4, 2008) ("Ting").
ANALYSIS
Claims 21, 30, 31, and 37-40
Appellant argues Weider "fails to suggest any detection of a context
trigger, associating such trigger and change to a configuration or setting
information of another communication system based on such a trigger."
App. Br. 11-12. Appellant further argues "[n]o trigger for a change to a
second system that is based on natural human language of first information
provided to a first communication system nor a change to a second
communication system based on such a trigger exists in Weider, or any other
cited art." App. Br. 12. Appellant acknowledges that "[t]he device interface
disclosed by Weider is configured to permit a user to communicate a
question or a command to a system so that the system can respond to that
question or command;" however, Appellant asserts this does not teach
automatically changing the configuration or setting information of the
second communication system as recited in the claim. App. Br. 14 ( citing
Weider ,r,r 43-86). According to Appellant, Weider only has a single
communication system. App. Br. 15.
We are not persuaded by Appellant's arguments. Weider "enables
mobile users to submit natural language speech and/or non-speech questions
or commands in a wide range of domains," such as, for example to the
3
Appeal2017-001730
Application 14/678,07 6
telematics control unit (TCU) of a vehicle. Weider ,r,r 1, 99. Figure 5 of
Weider depicts the natural language processing system, including speech
unit 128 and main unit 98. Weider ,r 93. Figure 2 of Weider, also relied
upon by the Examiner, depicts the broader system, including a mobile
structure 10 (e.g. a vehicle), as well as mobile devices 36 (e.g. mobile
phones) and fixed computers 44. See Final Act. 2-3, Weider ,r 99, Fig. 2.
Weider indicates speech unit 128 and main unit 98 may be part of mobile
devices 36, and are coupled to the TCU through data interfaces 26. Weider
,r,r 99, 100, 131, Fig. 2.
Weider describes local or remote control of mobile structure (vehicle)
systems, such as door locks, window controls, and other systems. Id. ,r 46;
see also id. ,r 101. "[R ]emote operation may be conducted through an IP
connection, a telephone connection, or other connections." Id. ,r 42. In
remote operations, "[t]he user may address spoken commands to a mobile
device or desktop unit, which may send the commands to controllers on the
vehicle over wireless links." Id. ,r 42. Weider indicates that "the result of
the command is generally an action." Id. ,r 42. Control and device
interfaces connect the TCU to various devices within the mobile structure
and are used to execute the local or remote commands from users of the
natural language interface. Id. ,r 101, Fig. 2. Weider indicates that "the
control and device interfaces 30 may incorporate fail-safe systems that, for
example, may verify operating limits before changing settings." Id. ,r 101.
A response may be provided to the user to indicate the success or failure of
the command. Id. ,r 28.
Based on the foregoing disclosure, we agree with the Examiner that
Weider discloses the disputed limitations. For example, Weider discloses
4
Appeal2017-001730
Application 14/678,076
detecting at least one context sensitive trigger ( e.g., "unlock") in the first
information ( e.g., "unlock the doors") via at least one context trigger
mechanism based on the natural human language of the first information
(e.g., the natural language interface and system of the mobile device);
associating a change in a configuration or setting information of a second
communication system that is configured to provide a service to a user of the
first user interface with the at least one detected context sensitive trigger
(e.g., unlocking the doors constitute a change in a configuration or setting
information in the vehicle); and changing the configuration or setting
information of the second communication system automatically in response
to the detected at least one context sensitive trigger using a processor, such
change being the change associated with the detected context sensitive
trigger ( e.g. the control and device interfaces unlocking the doors of the
vehicle upon receiving the natural language command "unlock"). Moreover,
we are not persuaded by Appellant's arguments that Weider only discloses a
single communication system. See, e.g. Id. at Fig. 2.
Accordingly, we are not persuaded the Examiner erred in rejecting
independent claim 21 under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b), and we, therefore, sustain
the Examiner's rejection of claim 21. Claim 3 0 depends from claim 21 and
was not separately argued, so we sustain the Examiner's 35 U.S.C. § 102(b)
rejection of claim 30 for the same reasons. Independent claims 31 and 40
recite similar limitations to those in claim 21, and Appellant presents similar
arguments. See App. Br. 24--26 and 28-33. Accordingly, for the same
reasons, we sustain the Examiner's 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) rejection of claims 31
and 40. Claims 37-39 depend from claim 31 and were not separately
5
Appeal2017-001730
Application 14/678,076
argued, so we sustain the Examiner's 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) rejection of claims
37-39 for the same reasons.
Claim 22 and 32
Claim 22 depends from claim 21 and recites "further comprising
gathering the first information by collecting status information from at least
one server of the first communication system that communicates with a
device of the user for the device to utilize services offered by the first
communication system." App. Br. 37.
Appellant argues the cited paragraphs of Weider "merely disclose[s]
an interface that permits a user to query a diagnostic and service history for a
vehicle to receive information about the vehicle's service history" and "no
gathering of [status] information from a server of the communication
system." App. Br. 18.
We are persuaded by Appellant's arguments. The Examiner relies on
paragraph 52 of Weider, and finds "the collection of information is from the
device (the vehicle), and communicated over the server system for devices
that are under control of or measured by the system." Ans. 11. The
Examiner has not sufficiently explained how the foregoing discloses the
limitations in claim 22. Specifically, in claim 21, the Examiner relies on the
"multiple handheld devices" as shown in Figure 2 of Weider to teach or
suggest the first communication system, but then relies on the vehicle as
teaching the first communication system in the findings for claim 22. See
Final Act. 2-3.
Accordingly, based on the current record, we are persuaded the
Examiner erred in rejecting claim 22 under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b), and we,
therefore, do not sustain the Examiner's rejection of claim 22. We also do
6
Appeal2017-001730
Application 14/678,07 6
not sustain the Examiner's rejection of claim 32, which recites similar
limitations and for which Appellant made similar arguments (App. Br. 24--
26), for the same reasons.
Claims 24 and 34
Claim 24 depends from claim 21 and recites "wherein the detecting of
the at least one context sensitive trigger in the first information via at least
one context trigger mechanism based on the natural human language of the
first information comprises matching an expression contained in the first
information with natural human language data and extracting matched
human language information."
In addition to arguments presented with respect to claim 21, Appellant
further argues "Weider is silent with respect to any use of any matching of
human language from information posted to a first system via an interface
nor any extraction of matched human language information to detect a
context sensitive trigger within that posted information." App. Br. 19.
We disagree. As discussed above, Weider "enables mobile users to
submit natural language speech and/or non-speech questions or commands
in a wide range of domains," such as, for example to the telematics control
unit (TCU) of a vehicle. Weider ,r,r 1, 99. Weider describes that keywords
or context may be used to determine whether a textual or spoken message
includes a request or command. Id. ,r,r 2 7, 18. Weider further discloses
determining context information from a textual or spoken command by
"compar[ing] [the command or request] against a context description
grammar to identify a match." Id. ,r 20.
Accordingly, we are not persuaded the Examiner erred in rejecting
claim 24 under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b), and we, therefore, sustain the
7
Appeal2017-001730
Application 14/678,076
Examiner's rejection of claim 24. We also sustain the Examiner's rejection
of claim 34, which recites similar limitations, and for which Appellant made
similar arguments (App. Br. 26-27) for the same reasons.
Claim 25
Claim 25 depends from claim 24 and recites "wherein the changing of
the configuration or setting information of the second communication
system is based on the matched human language information."
Appellant presents many of the same arguments as with respect to
claims 21 and 24. App. Br. 19-20. For the same reasons as set forth with
respect to claims 21 and 24, we are not persuaded the Examiner erred in
rejecting claim 25 under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b), and we, therefore, do not
sustain the Examiner's rejection of claim 25.
Claims 26, 29, 35, and 36
Claim 26 depends from claim 25 and recites, inter alia, "wherein the
first communication system hosts a first social media network service and
the second communication system hosts a second social media network
service." Claim 29 recites a similar limitation. App. Br. 39.
Appellant argues "[ n Jo social media services are provided by the
vehicle related and sales/purchasing related services disclosed by Weider."
Id. at 21. According to Appellant, "Weider fails to teach or suggest social
media services, communications to such services, and the detection of
triggers from information posted to such services that is used to
automatically change a setting or configuration of another system hosting
another social media network service." Id. at 21-22; see also id. at 23-24.
We agree with Appellant. The Examiner relies on paragraphs 103 and
148 of Weider to disclose the limitations in claim 26, and paragraphs 100
8
Appeal2017-001730
Application 14/678,076
and 104 of Weider to disclose the limitations in claim 29. Final Act. 4. We
do not see, and the Examiner has not sufficiently explained, how the
foregoing paragraphs disclose the disputed limitation, specifically with
respect to the claimed social media networks.
Accordingly, based on the current record, we are persuaded the
Examiner erred in rejecting claims 26 and 29 under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b ), and
we, therefore, do not sustain the Examiner's rejection of claims 26 and 29.
We also do not sustain the Examiner's rejection of claims 35 and 36, which
recites similar limitations and for which Appellant presented similar
arguments (App. Br. 27-28), for the same reasons.
Claims 2 7 and 2 8
Claim 27 depends from claim 21 and recites "wherein the context
sensitive trigger mechanism uses an email address as an identifier for the
user and regularly scans database entries for the first and second
communication systems to detect at least one context sensitive trigger" and
"wherein the processor utilizes a learning algorithm based on a monitoring
of correlated behavior of at least one user of the first communication
system."
Appellant argues "the Examiner fails to identify where any use of an
email address as an identifier of a user or regular scans of databases can be
found in Weider." App. Br. 22.
We agree with Appellant. The Examiner relies on paragraph 101 of
Weider. Final Act. 4. However, the Examiner has not sufficiently shown or
explained how paragraph 101 discloses the disputed limitations in claim 27.
Accordingly, based on the current record, we are persuaded the
Examiner erred in rejecting claim 27 under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b), and we,
9
Appeal2017-001730
Application 14/678,076
therefore, do not sustain the Examiner's rejection of claim 27. Claim 28
depends from claim 27, so we do not sustain the Examiner's rejection for the
same reasons.
Claims 23 and 33
Claim 23 depends from claim 21 and recites "further comprising the
second communication system gathering the first information by employing
at least one keystroke listener running on at least one terminal device of the
user that is utilized to communicate with the second communication
system." Claim 33 depends from claim 31 and recites "wherein the
processor is configured to gather information by employing at least one
keystroke listener running on the device."
The Examiner relies on the combination of Weider and Ting to teach
or suggest the limitations in claims 23 and 33. Final Act. 5. Appellant
argues:
The Examiner failed to provide a rational underpinning
for the rejection of claims 23 and 33 as obvious. For example,
the Examiner failed to provide the required rational
underpinning to explain how one of skill in the art would
modify Weider to include the above noted features missing
from the Weider reference recited in claims 21 and 31. The
Examiner relies upon incorrect factual conclusions as noted
above to contend Weider discloses or suggests features recited
in claims 21 and 31 for purposes of contending that claims 23
and 33 are obvious. The Examiner therefore failed to meet his
burden of showing claims 23 and 33 are obvious.
App. Br. 36.
\Ve are not apprised of error based on Appe11ant's arguments.
Rejections based on obviousness must be supported by "some articulated
reasoning with some rational underpinning to support the legal conclusion of
10
Appeal2017-001730
Application 14/678,076
obviousness." In re Kahn, 441 F.3d 977, 988 (Fed. Cir. 2006), cited with
approval in KSR Int 'l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398,418 (2007).
Appellant does not substantively address or show error in the reasoning
provided by the Examiner (see Final Act 5). Here, we determine that the
Examiner's reasoning supports a prima facie case of obviousness of claims
23 and 33. See In re Oetiker, 977 F.2d 1443, 1445 (Fed. Cir. 1992). By not
addressing the Examiner's reasoning, Appellant has not shown error in the
relevant findings or the conclusion as to obviousness. 1\1oreover, Appellant
has not shown that the proposed modifications are beyond the level of skill
of one of ordinary skill in the art, or that the modifications are more than the
use of known elements to yield predictable results. See KSR, 550 U.S. at
417.
Accordingly, we are not persuaded the Examiner erred in rejecting
claims 23 and 33 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a), and we, therefore, sustain
the Examiner's rejection of claims 23 and 33.
DECISION
The Examiner's 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) rejection of claims 21, 24, 25, 30,
31, 34, and 37--40 is affirmed.
The Examiner's 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) rejection of claims 22, 26-29, 32,
3 5, and 3 6 is reversed.
The Examiner's 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) rejection of claims 23 and 33
is 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).
pplication 14/678,076
AFFIRMED-IN-PART
11