Ex Parte Godewyn et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Apr 24, 2018

14708211 (P.T.A.B. Apr. 24, 2018)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
APPLICATION NO.
14/708,211
112025 7590
CRGOLAW
7900 Glades Road
Suite 520
FILING DATE
05/09/2015
04/26/2018
Boca Raton, FL 33434
FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
Charles Godewyn
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.
1301-064U 6857
EXAMINER
HANG,VUB
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2672
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
04/26/2018 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):
docketing@crgolaw.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte CHARLES GODEWYN, FILIPE GUERRA,
VLADYSLA V KULCHYTSKYY, AND MARIA ZOLOTOV A 1
Appeal2017-010760
Application 14/708,211
Technology Center 2600
Before ROBERT E. NAPPI, SCOTT B. HOWARD, and SCOTT E. BAIN
Administrative Patent Judges.
NAPPI, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
This is a decision on appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the
Examiner's final rejection of claims 1, 3 through 7, 9 through 13, and
15 through 18. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We AFFIRM.
1 According to Appellants, the real party in interest is SugarCRM, Inc. App.
Br. 2.
Appeal2017-010760
Application 14/708,211
INVENTION
Appellants' disclosed invention is directed to the automated retrieval
of "contextual relevant data" in an in-person meeting. See Spec., Abstract.
Claim 1 is representative of the invention and reproduced below.
1. A method for the automated retrieval of contextual
relevant data in an in-person meeting, the method
compnsmg:
capturing speech audio in an in-person meeting
through a transducer coupled to a personal computing
device;
speech recognizing the captured speech audio by a
processor of the computing device without regard to any
speaker of the captured speech audio so as to produce a
corpus of speech recognized text;
parsing in memory of the personal computing device
the corpus of speech recognized text in order to identify a
multiplicity of keywords;
mapping the keywords to one or more records of an
enterprise application comprising a customer relationship
management (CRM) application; and,
displaying a user interface to the enterprise application
in the personal computing device and displaying in the
user interface the one or more records during the in-person
meeting and while capturing the speech audio.
REJECTION AT ISSUE2
The Examiner has rejected claims 1, 3 through 7, 9 through 13, and 15
through 18 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Wasserblat
(US 2012/0116766 Al, published May 10, 2012), Basu (US 2008/0300872
2 Throughout this Decision we refer to the Appeal Brief ("App. Br.") filed
February 23, 2017, Reply Brief ("Reply Br.") filed August 16, 2016, Final
Office Action ("Final Act.") mailed September 22, 2016, and the Examiner's
Answer ("Answer") mailed December 15, 2016.
2
Appeal2017-010760
Application 14/708,211
Al, published December 4, 2008) and Sykes (US 8,898,063 Bl, issued
November 25, 2014). Final Act. 3-5.
ISSUES
Appellants argue on pages 5 through 9 of the Appeal Brief and pages
1 through 8 of the Reply Brief that the Examiner's obviousness rejection of
claims 1, 3 through 7, 9 through 13, and 15 through 18 is in error. These
arguments present us with the following issues:
a) Did the Examiner err in finding the combination of Wasserblat,
Basu and Sykes teaches mapping of records in a customer relationship
management (CRM) application to speech recognized keywords acquired
during the course of an in-person meeting as recited in representative claim
1?
b) Did the Examiner err in finding the skilled artisan would
combine the teachings of Wasserblat, Basu and Sykes?
ANALYSIS
We have reviewed Appellants' arguments in the Appeal Brief, the
Examiner's rejections, and the Examiner's response to Appellant's
arguments. Appellants' arguments have not persuaded us of error in the
Examiner's rejections of claims 1, 3 through 7, 9 through 13, and 15 through
18 under 35 U.S.C. § 103.
With respect to the first issue, Appellants argue that the Examiner's
rejection does not account for the customer relationship management (CRM)
application. App. Br. 6-7. Appellants argue that the Examiner refers to
Sykes in connection with an enterprise CRM but that the cited teaching is
directed to a document for buying or selling shares of stock. Appellants
3
Appeal2017-010760
Application 14/708,211
argue this is plainly not a CRM as understood in the art. App. Br. 7, Reply
Br. 3. Appellants recite the titles of 40 Patents with the acronym CRM in
the title to demonstrate that the term CRM is known in the art. Reply Br. 4--
6.
We are not persuaded of error by. As identified by the Examiner,
Appellants' Specification provides no definition of what constitutes a CRM
application. Answer 2-3. Further, while the Appellants have shown that the
term CRM is used extensively, Appellants have not proffered any definition
of the term that would encompass the system of Sykes, which tracks an
order a client (customer) places with a broker. Thus, Appellants' arguments
have not persuaded us of error in the Examiner's finding that the Sykes'
business application meets the claimed CRM.
Additionally, we note that representative claim 1 recites mapping a
keyword (identified from spoken text) to one or more records and that the
records are of a CRM enterprise application. Thus, the claim does not recite
using a CRM application, but rather recites the CRM application is directed
to the type of record. While Appellants' Specification does not define what
constitutes a record of a CRM application, Appellants' Specification
provides several example keywords that are mapped to records relating to
names ( customer, company or sales representative) see para. 6. Sykes
teaches that the spoken text that is mapped to the document includes names
of speakers ( client and broker) and company (see Figures 4B, 5, column 6,
lines 28-30 and column 10, lines 38--40). Thus, Sykes teaches mapping and
entering data similar to what Appellants disclose as being records of a CRM.
Accordingly, Appellants' arguments directed to the first issue have not
persuaded us of error in the Examiner's rejection of representative claim 1.
4
Appeal2017-010760
Application 14/708,211
With respect to the second issue, Appellants argue that Sykes teaches
that the analysis of speech and completion of the document occurs after the
conversation has ended. App. Br. 8, Reply Br. 7-8. As such, Appellants
argue that the benefit of Appellants' invention "cannot be realized by the
combination of Sykes, Basu and Wasserblat primarily because Sykes does not
allow the processing of any audio of a telephone conversation until after the
conversation has ended." App Br. 8. Thus, Appellants ague the combination
of the references defeats the operation of Appellants claimed invention and
teaches away as to combine the references "would not realize the aim of
Appellants' invention - meeting assistant intended to assist an attendee to a
meeting during the meeting." App. Br. 9.
We are not persuaded of error in the Examiner's rejection by these
arguments. The Examiner finds, and Appellants do not contest, that Wasserblat
teaches capturing and performing speech recognition in a face to face meeting
and Basu teaches mapping keywords in audio while capturing the audio.
Answer 3, Final Act. 3--4. The Examiner finds that when these teachings are
combined with Sykes, the claims are obvious, i.e., the spoken text is mapped
and displayed while capturing the audio. A reference does not teach away if it
merely expresses a general preference for an alternative invention from
amongst options available to the ordinarily skilled artisan, and the reference
does not discredit or discourage investigation into the invention claimed.
See In re Fulton, 391 F.3d 1195, 1201 (Fed. Cir. 2004). While Sykes may
teach mapping after the recording, this teaching does not discourage, or teach
away from, a combination with other teachings where the mapping concurs
while the audio is captured. Thus, Appellants' arguments directed to the
second issue have not persuaded us of error in the Examiner's rejection of
representative claim 1. Accordingly, we sustain the Examiner's obviousness
5
Appeal2017-010760
Application 14/708,211
rejection of claim 1 and claims 3 through 7, 9 through 13, and 15 through 18
grouped with claim 1.
DECISION
We affirm the Examiner's rejection of claims 1, 3 through 7, 9
through 13, and 15 through 18 under 35 U.S.C. § 103.
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