10804688 (B.P.A.I. Jan. 4, 2012)

Ex Parte Davis et al

Board of Patent Appeals and InterferencesJan 4, 2012

10804688 (B.P.A.I. Jan. 4, 2012)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARKOFFICE 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. 10/804,688 03/19/2004 Brent L. Davis N0484.70563US00 8175 23628 7590 01/04/2012 WOLF GREENFIELD & SACKS, P.C. 600 ATLANTIC AVENUE BOSTON, MA 02210-2206 EXAMINER YEN, ERIC L ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 2626 MAIL DATE DELIVERY MODE 01/04/2012 PAPER 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. PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07) UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE _____________ BEFORE THE BOARD OF PATENT APPEALS AND INTERFERENCES _____________ Ex parte BRENT L. DAVIS, ALAN P. MCDONLEY, VANESSA V. MICHELINI and PEEYUSH JAISWAL _____________ Appeal 2009-012827 Application 10/804,688 Technology Center 2600 ______________ Before MAHSHID D. SAADAT, ROBERT E. NAPPI, and CARLA M. KRIVAK, Administrative Patent Judges. NAPPI, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL Appeal 2009-012827 Application 10/804,688 2 This is a decision on appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) of the rejection of claims 1 through 19. We affirm. INVENTION The invention is directed to a voice disambiguation system in an interactive voice recognition system for processing a substring of characters within an input to the system. See pages 4 and 5 of Appellants’ Specification. Claim 1 is representative of the invention and is reproduced below: 1. A method for processing string input for a field in an interactive voice response (IVR) system, the method comprising the steps of: identifying a sub-string pattern of characters within acceptable input for the field which is known to enjoy a high likelihood of recognition, the sub-string pattern of characters exclusively containing a sequence of characters appearing amongst all characters for the acceptable input for the field; prompting an interacting user for string input limited to said sub-string pattern; matching received sub-string input conforming to said sub- string pattern with data which conforms to said acceptable input to locate the string input for the field; and, completing the field with said matched data. Appeal 2009-012827 Application 10/804,688 3 REFERENCE Rossides US 5,454,063 Sep. 26, 1995 REJECTION AT ISSUE The Examiner has rejected claims 1 through 19 as anticipated under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) by Rossides. Answer 3-7.1 ISSUE Appellants argue on pages 6 through 11 of the Brief that the Examiner’s rejection of claims 1 through 19 is in error.2 Appellants’ arguments present us with the issue did the Examiner error in finding that Rossides teaches the identification of a sub-string pattern of characters within an acceptable input for a field which is known to enjoy a high likelihood of recognition? ANALYSIS Appellants argue Rossides teaches abbreviating a name and does not teach a substring pattern of characters within an acceptable input for a field which is known to enjoy a high likelihood of recognition. Brief 9. Further, Appellants argue that the Examiner has not specifically pinpointed a citation of Rossides which teaches this feature. Brief 10. These arguments have not persuaded us of error in the Examiner’s rejection. On pages 7 through 13 of the Answer, the Examiner provides a detailed analysis directed to the scope 1 Throughout this opinion we refer to the Examiner’s Answer mailed on April 2, 2009. Appeal 2009-012827 Application 10/804,688 4 of the claim term “which is known to enjoy a high likelihood of recognition.” Further, the Examiner provides a cogent rationale, including several examples from Rossides, demonstrating how Rossides teaches these features (see Ans. 10 through 12) . We concur with the Examiner’s claim interpretation as it is reasonable and has not been shown to be inconsistent with Appellants’ Specification. Further, we concur with the Examiner’s fact finding as it is supported by Rossides disclosure. Accordingly, we are not persuaded that the Examiner erred in finding that Rossides teaches identification of a sub-string pattern of characters, as recited in representative claim 1. Thus, we sustain the Examiner’s anticipation rejection of claims 1 through 19. ORDER The decision of the Examiner to reject claims 1 through 19 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)(1)(iv). AFFIRMED tj 2 Throughout this opinion we refer to Appellants’ Brief dated December 1, 2008.