Ex Parte Anajwala

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Jul 20, 2018

14072344 (P.T.A.B. Jul. 20, 2018)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE
14/072,344 11/05/2013
48500 7590 07/24/2018
SHERIDAN ROSS P.C.
1560 BROADWAY, SUITE 1200
DENVER, CO 80202
FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
Sarangkumar Jagdishchandra Anajwala
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.
4366-829 7734
EXAMINER
KLICOS, NICHOLAS GEORGE
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2142
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
07/24/2018 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):
cjacquet@sheridanross.com
pair_Avaya@firsttofile.com
edocket@sheridanross.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte SARANGKUMAR JAGDISHCHANDRA ANAJW ALA
Appeal2018-001660
Application 14/072,344
Technology Center 2100
Before ERIC B. CHEN, WSTIN BUSCH, and BETH Z. SHAW,
Administrative Patent Judges.
SHAW, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL 1
Appellant2 seeks our review under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) of the
Examiner's Final Rejection of claims 1-14 and 21-26, which represent all
the pending claims. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We affirm-in-part.
1 Throughout this Decision we have considered the Appeal Brief filed
September 13, 2017 ("App. Br."), Reply Brief filed December 4, 2017
("Reply Br."), the Examiner's Answer mailed October 23, 2017 ("Ans.")
and the Final Office Action mailed July 14, 2017 ("Final Act.").
2 Appellant identifies Avaya Inc. as the real party in interest. App. Br. 2.
Appeal2018-001660
Application 14/072,344
INVENTION
Appellant's invention is directed to user interfaces for
communications and suggesting predictive actions for communications.
Spec. ,r 1.
Claim 1 is illustrative and reproduced below:
1. A method comprising:
receiving, at a communications server, an incoming call directed
at a first device associated with a user;
identifying, via a processor of the communications server, a
caller associated with the incoming call;
retrieving, by the communications server and based on an
identity of the caller in the incoming call, an action performed by the
user on a different second device when a previous call with the caller
was received by or connected with the second device, wherein the
action performed by the user on the second device is to launch a first
computer application on the second device;
providing, by the communications server, a selectable user
interface object to perform the action of launching the first computer
application for presentation to the user via a user interface of the first
device based on the action performed by the user on the second
device; and
upon receiving a selection of the selectable user interface object
from the user, performing the action by the communications server of
launching the first computer application on the first device.
REJECTIONS
The Examiner rejected claims 1-3, 5, 7-11, 14, 21, 22, 25, and 26
under 35 U.S.C. § 101 as directed to patent ineligible subject matter. Final
Act. 8-10.
2
Appeal2018-001660
Application 14/072,344
The Examiner rejected claims 1, 2, 5, 10, and 11 under 35 U.S.C.
§ I03(a)3 as being unpatentable over Balasaygun et al. (US 2010/0228560
Al, published Sept. 9, 2010; hereinafter "Balasaygun") and Chu et al. (US
2013/0173513 Al, published July 4, 2013; hereinafter "Chu"). Final
Act. 10-16.
The Examiner rejected claims 3, 4, 6, 9, 12, 13, and 21-24 under
35 U.S.C. § 103 as unpatentable over Balasaygun, Chu, and
Ananthakrishnan et al. (US 2012/0278727 Al, published Nov. 1, 2012;
hereinafter "Ananthakrishnan"). Final Act. 16-25.
The Examiner rejected claims 7, 8, and 14 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as
unpatentable over Balasaygun, Chu, and Olincy et al. (US 2011/0151852
Al, published June 23, 2011; hereinafter "Olincy"). Final Act. 26-28.
The Examiner rejected claims 25 and 26 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as
unpatentable over Balasaygun, Chu, Ananthakrishnan, and Olincy. Final
Act. 28-29.
CONTENTIONS AND ANALYSIS
We have reviewed Appellant's arguments in the Briefs, the
Examiner's rejection, and the Examiner's response to Appellant's
arguments.
The Section 1 OJ Rejection
The Examiner finds that claims 1-3, 5, 7-11, 14, 21, 22, 25, and 26
are directed to the abstract idea of "generat[ing] tasks based on rules to be
completed upon the occurrence of an event." Final Act. 8. The Examiner
3 Although the Final Rejection refers to 35 U.S.C. § I02(a)(l), we
understand the rejection to be an obviousness rejection under 35 U.S.C.
§ I03(a).
3
Appeal2018-001660
Application 14/072,344
further finds that the claims do not include additional elements that are
sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception
because "the limitations are merely instructions to implement the abstract
idea on a computer and require no more than a generic computer to perform
generic computer functions." Id. at 9.
Appellant argues the Examiner erred because (1) the claims are not
directed to an abstract idea because the claims do not fall within a judicially
created category that qualifies as an abstract idea, and (2) the claims add
"significantly more" than the exception. App. Br. 10-15.
The first step in the Alice inquiry in this case asks whether the focus
of the claims is on the specific asserted improvement in computer
capabilities or, instead, on a process that qualifies as an "abstract idea" for
which computers are invoked merely as a tool. Enfish, LLC v. Microsoft
Corp., 822 F.3d 1327, 1335-36 (Fed. Cir. 2016).
Claim 1 recites:
A method comprising:
receiving, at a communications server, an incoming call directed
at a first device associated with a user;
identifying, via a processor of the communications server, a
caller associated with the incoming call;
retrieving, by the communications server and based on an
identity of the caller in the incoming call, an action performed by the
user on a different second device when a previous call with the caller
was received by or connected with the second device, wherein the
action performed by the user on the second device is to launch a first
computer application on the second device;
providing, by the communications server, a selectable user
interface object to perform the action of launching the first computer
application for presentation to the user via a user interface of the first
device based on the action performed by the user on the second
device; and
4
Appeal2018-001660
Application 14/072,344
upon receiving a selection of the selectable user interface object from
the user, performing the action by the communications server of
launching the first computer application on the first device.
Claims 1, 10, and 21 deal with a communications server determining the
identify of a caller on an incoming call directed to a first device, and based
on the identity, determining an action performed on a second device (where
in a previous call, the user launched a computer application), providing a
user interface object to perform an action of launching the computer
application on the first device, and then launching the computer application
based on a selection from the user.
In Enfzsh, the Federal Circuit found "the plain focus of the claims is
on an improvement to computer functionality itself, not on economic or
other tasks for which a computer is used in its ordinary capacity." 822 F.3d
at 1336. Accordingly, the court found that the claims at issue in Enfish were
not directed to an abstract idea within the meaning of Alice. Id. Rather, they
found the claims were "directed to a specific improvement to the way
computers operate, embodied in the self-referential table." Id.
In this case, as in Enfzsh, the focus of the claims is on an improvement
to computer functionality itself, not on economic or other tasks for which a
computer is used in its ordinary capacity. As Appellant points out, the focus
of the claims, i.e., on launching of the computer application on two different
devices, is not a function that can be performed mentally. Accordingly, we
conclude that Appellant's claims are patent eligible because they are not
directed to an abstract idea within the meaning of Alice. Instead, they are
directed to a specific improvement to the way computers operate.
5
Appeal2018-001660
Application 14/072,344
The Specification describes a system that "can identify a set of 5
different predictive actions, and present the best predictive action or the N-
best list of predictive actions." Spec. ,r 8. The system can learn a user's
communication patterns and can apply the learned patterns to predict what
the user is likely to do for a particular communication event and/or context.
Id. ,r 31. The system generates, highlights, or provides a simple way for the
user to launch those actions. Id.
Moreover, like the court in Enfzsh, we are not persuaded that the
invention's ability to run on a general-purpose computer dooms the claims.
See Enfzsh, 822 F.3d at 1338-39. Unlike the claims at issue in Alice, the
claims here are directed to an improvement in the functioning of a computer.
In contrast, the claims at issue in Alice add conventional computer
components to well-known business practices. See Enfzsh, 822 F.3d at
1338-39 (citing Alice, 134 S. Ct. at 2358---60). This is not "a situation where
general-purpose computer components are added post-hoc to a fundamental
economic practice or rnathematical equation." Id. at 1339. Rather, the
claims are directed to a specific implementation of a solution to a problem in
software .. Accordingly, we find the claims at issue are not directed to an
abstract idea.
We note that, because the claims are narrowly directed to launching a
first computer application for presentation to a user via a user interface of
the first device based on an action performed by the user on a second device,
any preemption is appropriately limited to Appellant's alleged contribution
to the art and does not extend to launching applications generally.
6
Appeal2018-001660
Application 14/072,344
Because the claims are not directed to an abstract idea under step one
of the Alice analysis, we do not need to proceed to step two of that analysis.
Enfish, 822 F.3d at 1339.
For these reasons, we do not sustain the rejection of claims 1-3, 5, 7-
11, 14, 21, 22, 25, and 26 under 35 U.S.C. § 101.
The Obviousness Rejection
Claim 1
Appellant argues "Balasaygun does not state that buddy list is
changed for every received call." App. Br. 18. However, the claims do not
require an action for "every received call," but rather, for "an incoming
call." As the Examiner explains, and we agree, Balasaygun teaches various
user actions that can be measured across devices, e.g., a first device or a
second device, and their communication with a server. Ans. 7; Balasaygun
Fig. 1 and ,r,r 35-36, 40, 42, and 54--56. These different communication
devices can receive calls and take into account the contact information of the
particular caller. This information can then be used to create a buddy list on
the different communication devices. See id. Chu allows for the pre-
launching of specific applications based on previous interactions with said
application(s), and with the previous launching and interactions of the
application(s) being associated with the caller. Id.; see Chu Figs. 4A--4B
and ,r,r 19 and 52-53. Therefore, Balasaygun or Chu receive and record
actions taken during a call and present the information to the user in the
form of the buddy list or automatically launch the particular application in
response to the incoming call. Balasaygun discloses suggested action menus
and buddy list reorganization actions that one of ordinary skill in the art
7
Appeal2018-001660
Application 14/072,344
would recognize equates to the selectable interface object to perform the
predictive action of Chu.
Accordingly, we sustain the rejection of independent claim 1 as
unpatentable over Balasaygun and Chu. For the same reasons, we sustain
the rejection of independent claim 10, for which Appellant presents the same
or essentially the same arguments as claim 1. App. Br. 20. We also sustain
the rejection of dependent claims 3, 11, and 22, for which Appellant states in
the Reply Brief, "[t]he Appellant agrees with the Examiner's arguments that
the cited references disclose claims 3, 11, and 22." Reply Br. 10. 4
Dependent claim 4
With respect to dependent claim 4, the Examiner finds
Ananthakrishnan explicitly takes into account the capabilities of two devices
when transmitting or opening particular files or documents, and certain
capabilities can affect how the files may be transferred. Ans. 9; see
Ananthakrishnan ,r 80. We agree with the Examiner that the claim language
does not require that the first and second applications be completely
different applications, only that they are on separate devices, so long as
those devices have different software or hardware capabilities or limitations.
Id. at 9-10.
Appellant makes a conclusory, unsupported argument that
Ananthakrishnan does not disclose the sent instructions are "device-
4 For purposes of this appeal, we understand Appellant to agree with the
Examiner that the references teach only the disputed elements additionally
recited in claims 3, 11, and 22----otherwise, Appellant would be withdrawing
the arguments with respect to claims from which these claims depend.
8
Appeal2018-001660
Application 14/072,344
specific." Reply Br. 11. We disagree because Ananthakrishnan teaches that
communications device 100 may have "different capabilities than
communications device 200," and
upon determining the compatible features, the compatible
communications features are transferred with the non-
compatible features being re-negotiated as needed, using for
example, SIP protocols, and further including the renegotiation
of codecs as needed, the adding or subtracting of media paths,
and optionally the maintaining of call control information on
communications device 100 while transferring the compatible
features, such as audio information, to device 200.
Ananthakrishnan ,r 78. Appellant provides insufficient evidence to show the
Specification or claims limit "device-specific" in a way that, under a broad
but reasonable interpretation, does not encompass Ananthakrishnan's
description of different capabilities between the communications devices as
well as various examples of non-compatible features being transferred.
Accordingly, we sustain the rejection of dependent claim 4.
Dependent claim 21
Claim 21 depends from claim 1 and recites, in part, "wherein the first
computer application is one of a word processing application, a call
recording application, or a spreadsheet application." Appellant argues that
claim 1 recites specific types of applications and Ananthakrishnan does not
disclose or suggest that the call record file is accessed by a word processing,
a call recording, or a spreadsheet application. App. Br. 25, 26. Appellant
also argues that Ananthakrishnan does not disclose that the application is
launched on a second device that is provided to a first device. Id. at 26.
9
Appeal2018-001660
Application 14/072,344
The Examiner finds, and we agree, that the claim requires an action to
launch a first computer application, "'wherein the first computer application
is one of a word processing application, a call recording application, or a
spreadsheet application.'" Ans. 10. We also agree that Ananthakrishnan
explicitly teaches such exchanging applications, and that an application or
file can be related to call records as well as various documents that can be
opened related to those call records. Id. ( citing Ananthakrishnan ,r 20 ("in
general any data, application or information, or communication management
could be exchanged between the devices"), ,r 65). Furthermore,
Ananthakrishnan explicitly teaches that a document editing application is
one that can be opened when the call is received. Id. ,r 85.
In the Reply Brief, Appellant argues Ananthakrishnan does not teach
a call being received when the document is transferred. Reply Br. 11.
However, the Examiner relies on Balasaygun, not Ananthakrishnan, as
teaching that claim limitation. See Final Act. 22-23. Ananthakrishnan is
relied on to teach "wherein the first computer application is one of a word
processing application, a call recording application, or a spreadsheet
application." Id. ( emphasis omitted).
For these reasons, we sustain the rejection of dependent claim 21.
Dependent Claims 9 and 26
Dependent claim 9 recites "wherein the multiple predictive actions are
performed during the incoming call by multiple different devices of the
user." Dependent claim 26 recites similar limitations.
In the Final Office Action, the Examiner finds Ananthakrishnan
teaches this limitation in Figures 1-3 and paragraphs 32 and 94--97. Final
10
Appeal2018-001660
Application 14/072,344
Act. 19. We agree with Appellant, however, that these cited portions of
Ananthakrishnan do not appear to teach the disputed limitation. The
Examiner does not respond to Appellant's arguments in the Answer. Based
on this record, we agree with Appellant that the Examiner has not shown
where the references teach "wherein the multiple predictive actions are
performed during the incoming call by multiple different devices of the
user." Therefore, we do not sustain the rejection of dependent claims 9 and
26.
CONCLUSION
We do not sustain the rejections of claims 1-3, 5, 7-11, 14, 21, 22, 25,
and 26 under § 101.
We sustain the rejections of claims 1-8, 10-14, and 21-25 under
§ 103.
We do not sustain the rejection of claims 9 and 26 under§ 103.
DECISION
The decision of the Examiner to reject claims 1-8, 10-14, and 21-25
is affirmed.
The decision of the Examiner to reject claims 9 and 26 is reversed.
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).
AFFIRMED-IN-PART
11