Ex Parte Anovick et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Aug 31, 2016

12204698 (P.T.A.B. Aug. 31, 2016)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE
12/204,698 09/04/2008
75158 7590 09/02/2016
Verint Systems, Inc,
Meunier Carlin & Curfman, LLC
999 Peachtree Street NE
Suite 1300
Atlanta, GA 30309
FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
Justin Anovick
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.
10171-258US 1 5460
EXAMINER
EVANS, KIMBERLYL
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
3629
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
09/02/2016 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):
laaronson@mcciplaw.com
KCarroll@mcciplaw.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte JUSTIN ANOVICK and CHARLIE ISAACS
Appeal2014-002175
Application 12/204,698 1
Technology Center 3600
Before: BIBHU R. MOHANTY, NINA L. MEDLOCK, and
ROBERT J. SILVERMAN, Administrative Patent Judges.
SILVERMAN, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
The Appellants appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Examiner's
decision rejecting claims 1-16. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C.
§ 6(b).
We AFFIRM.
ILLUSTRATIVE CLAIM
1. A method for agile channeling inquiries to a customer
relationship management system, the method comprising:
1 According to the Appellants, the real party in interest is Kana Corporation.
Appeal Br. 2.
Appeal2014-002175
Application 12/204,698
receiving an inquiry from a customer to a customer
relationship management system over a computer
communications network;
inspecting an environment pertaining to the inquiry;
matching the inspected environment to a specific channel
of communication amongst multiple different channels of
communication supported by the customer relationship
management system; and,
responding to the inquiry through the matched specific
channel of communications.
REJECTIONS 2
I. Claims 10-16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 101 as directed to
non-statutory subject matter.
II. Claims 1-16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 102(e) as
anticipated by Moore et al. (US 2007 /0209059 Al, published Sept. 6, 2007)
("Moore").
FINDINGS OF FACT
We rely upon and adopt the Examiner's findings stated in the Final
Action at pages 2-11 and the Answer at pages 3-18. Additional findings of
fact may appear in the Analysis below.
ANALYSIS
Rejection I
Independent claim 10 and claims 11-16 dependent therefrom stand
rejected, based upon the Examiner's determination that claim 10 reads on a
data signal-non-statutory subject matter under 35 U.S.C. § 101, according
2 The Final Office Action (at page 2) rejected claims 8 and 9 under
35 U.S.C. § 101 as directed to non-statutory subject matter. This rejection is
withdrawn. Answer 9.
2
Appeal2014-002175
Application 12/204,698
to In re Nuijten, 500 F.3d 1346, 1356-57 (Fed. Cir. 2007) (transitory
embodiments are not directed to statutory subject matter). Final Action 2-3.
The problematic language of claim 10 recites "[a] computer program
product comprising a computer usable storage medium storing computer
usable program code ... comprising ... computer usable program code."
According to the Appellants (Reply Br. 2---6), the Specification (i-f 26) reveals
an intent to limit the identified claim language to non-transitory
embodiments, such that the claim would be drawn to statutory subject
matter, in accordance with Ex parte Mewherter, 2013 WL 4477509 (PTAB
2013) (precedential).
The referenced language of the Specification states:
For the purposes of this description, a computer-usable or
computer readable medium can be any apparatus that can
contain, store, communicate, propagate, or transport the
program for use by or in connection with the instruction
execution system, apparatus, or device. Examples of a
computer-readable medium include a semiconductor or solid
state memory, magnetic tape, a removable computer diskette, a
random access memory (RAM), a read-only memory (ROM), a
rigid magnetic disk and an optical disk. Current examples of
optical disks include compact disk - read only memory (CD-
RO M), compact disk-read/write (CD-R/W) and DVD.
Spec. i126.
The Specification here employs non-restrictive language, stating that
"a computer-usable or computer readable medium can be any apparatus that
can contain, store, communicate, propagate, or transport the program for use
by or in connection with the instruction execution system, apparatus, or
device." Id. (emphasis added). Further, although the use of the term
"apparatus" arguably suggests a non-transitory embodiment, the
3
Appeal2014-002175
Application 12/204,698
Specification does not expressly exclude non-transitory signals.
Accordingly, the rejection of claims 10-16 under 35 U.S.C. § 101, as
directed to non-statutory subject matter, is sustained.
Rejection II
Claims 1-16 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 102(e) as anticipated by
Moore. Final Action 4--8.
The Appellants argue claims 1-16 as a group. Appeal Br. 9-14.
Claim 1 is selected for analysis herein; claims 2-16 stand or fall therewith.
See 37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(l)(iv).
The Appellants appear to suggest that the Examiner does not establish
a prima facie case of anticipation. See Appeal Br. 12-13; Reply Br. 8. On
the contrary, we find that the Examiner (Final Action 4--8) carried the
procedural burden of establishing a prima facie case, by "stating the reasons
for [the] rejection ... together with such information and references as may
be useful in judging of the propriety of continuing the prosecution of [the]
application." 35 U.S.C. § 132(a); see also In re Jung, 637 F.3d 1356, 1362
(Fed. Cir. 2011 ).
The Appellants contend that the Examiner erred in rejecting claim 1
because Moore lacks the claimed ( 1) "inspecting an environment pertaining
to the inquiry" and (2) "matching the inspected environment to a specific
channel of communication amongst multiple different channels of
communication." Appeal Br. 13; see also Reply Br. 8-10. Yet, we find that
the Examiner correctly maps the claimed "inspecting an environment
pertaining to the inquiry" to Moore's identification of device service
privileges and maps the claimed "matching the inspected environment to a
specific channel of communication" to Moore's authenticating the identity
4
Appeal2014-002175
Application 12/204,698
of the user and the communication device and allowing access to specific
applications and services based on the specific policies. Answer 16, 17
(citing Moore i-fi-125, 34, 42, and 63).
Insofar as the Appellants contend that the Examiner erred in rejecting
claim 1 because Moore lacks the claimed "matching the inspected
environment to a specific channel of communication," the Appellants do not
offer any argument in support of their position, but merely repeat the claim
language. See Reply Br. 8-10. This is not sufficient to demonstrate error.
See 3 7 C.F .R. § 41.3 7 ( c )( 1 )(iv) ("A statement which merely points out what
a claim recites will not be considered an argument for separate patentability
of the claim.")
In the Reply Brief, the Appellants assert that "the Examiner's Answer
is completely silent as to the claimed, '(A) matching of an inspected
environment to a specific channel of communication and (B) the responding
to an inquiry (C) through the matched specific channel of communication."'
Reply Br. 9. Such assertion either ignores the corresponding portion of the
Answer (see Answer 16-1 7) or - in regard to the claimed "responding to
the inquiry through the matched specific channel of communications" -
raises an issue not set forth in the Appeal Brief, which should not be
considered, per 37 C.F.R. § 41.41(b)(2).
Accordingly, the Appellants' arguments are not persuasive of error in
the rejection of claims 1-16 as anticipated under 35 U.S.C. § 102(e).
DECISION
We AFFIRM the Examiner's decision rejecting claims 10-16 under
35 U.S.C. § 101.
5
Appeal2014-002175
Application 12/204,698
We AFFIRM the Examiner's decision rejecting claims 1-16 under
35 U.S.C. § 102(e).
No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with
this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a).
AFFIRMED
6