Ex Parte Peters et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Jun 26, 2018

13684971 (P.T.A.B. Jun. 26, 2018)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE
13/684,971 11/26/2012
25537 7590 06/28/2018
VERIZON
PA TENT MANAGEMENT GROUP
1320 North Court House Road
9th Floor
ARLINGTON, VA 22201-2909
UNITED ST A TES OF AMERICA
FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
Edward L. Peters
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.
20120435 1002
EXAMINER
CHEN,YAHAO
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2177
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
06/28/2018 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):
patents@verizon.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte EDWARD L. PETERS, MACK ALEXANDER III, and
JENNIFER HA YES
Appeal2018-000946
Application 13/684,971 1
Technology Center 2100
Before MAHSHID D. SAADAT, ALLEN R. MacDONALD, and
JOHN P. PINKERTON, Administrative Patent Judges.
MacDONALD, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
STATEMENT OF CASE
Appellants appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from a final rejection of
claims 29, 32, 36, 39, and 58-74. Claims 1-28, 30-31, 33-35, 37-38, and
40-57 were cancelled. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b ).
We affirm.
Exemplary Claim
Exemplary claim 29 under appeal reads as follows (emphasis added):
1 The real party in interest is Verizon Communications Inc. and its subsidiary
companies. App. Br. 3.
Appeal2018-000946
Application 13/684,971
29. A network device, comprising:
a communication interface; and
a processing unit configured to:
receive, via the communication interface from multiple
different users at multiple different user devices, user input
related to a plurality of addresses that purportedly are not
accessible to a service provider network, but that potentially are
actually accessible to the service provider network,
wherein the user input from the multiple different users
comprises validation of the plurality of addresses, and wherein
the validation includes a user indication that each of the
plurality of addresses has been determined to either not be
accessible to the service provider network or to actually be
accessible to the service provider network;
revise stored service provider network information based
on the validation of the plurality of addresses;
generate statistics related to the multiple different users'
validation of the plurality of addresses; and
provide the statistics, via the communication interface, to
one or more other devices,
wherein the generated statistics further include a
progress of the validation, by a first one of the multiple
different users, of a first portion of the plurality of addresses
over time, and
wherein, when generating the statistics related to the
multiple different users' validation of the plurality of addresses,
the processing unit is further configured to:
track the validation of the first portion of the
plurality of addresses by the first one of the multiple
different users over time, and
generate a bar chart that tracks a total number of
the first portion of the plurality of addresses
successfully validated by the first one of the multiple
different users over a certain period of time.
App. Br. 24--25 (Claims Appendix).
2
Appeal2018-000946
Application 13/684,971
Rejections on Appeal
1. The Examiner rejected claims 29, 32, 36, 39, 58, 61---65, 68-70,
and 72-74 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Howarter et
al. (US 2008/0262897 Al; published Oct. 23, 2008) ("Howarter"), Reddick
et al. (US 6,981,001 B 1; issued Dec. 27, 2005) ("Reddick"), Schell et al.
(US 2004/0213383 Al; published Oct. 28, 2004) ("Schell"), and Fleenor et
al. (US 2008/0219330 Al; published Sept. 11, 2008) ("Fleenor"). 2
2. The Examiner rejected claims 59, 66, and 71 under
35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Howarter, Reddick, Schell,
Fleenor, and Lu et al. (US 2005/0002383 Al; published Jan. 6, 2005)
("Lu").
3. The Examiner rejected claims 60 and 67 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a)
as being unpatentable over Howarter, Reddick, Schell, Fleenor, and Pimpler
et al. (US 2007/0110032 Al; published May 17, 2007) ("Pimpler").
Issue on Appeal
Did the Examiner err in rejecting claims 29 and 58 as being obvious?
2 The patentability of claims 32, 36, 39, 59---63, 65-71, and 73-74 is not
separately argued from that of claim 29. See App. Br. 21-22. Additionally,
the patentability of claims 64 and 72 is not separately argued from that of
claim 58. See App. Br. 21. Thus, with respect to this rejection, except for
our ultimate decision, claims 32, 36, 39, and 59-74 are not discussed further
herein.
3
Appeal2018-000946
Application 13/684,971
PRINCIPLES OF LAW
The mere existence of differences between the prior art and the claim
does not establish non-obviousness. See Dann v. Johnston, 425 U.S. 219,
230 (1976). Instead, the relevant question is "whether the difference
between the prior art and the subject matter in question is a [difference]
sufficient to render the claimed subject matter unobvious to one skilled in
the applicable art." Dann, 425 U.S. at 228 (internal quotations and citations
omitted). Indeed, the Supreme Court made clear that when considering
obviousness, "the analysis need not seek out precise teachings directed to the
specific subject matter of the challenged claim, for a court can take account
of the inferences and creative steps that a person of ordinary skill in the art
would employ." KSR Int'! Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 418 (2007).
ANALYSIS
A. Claim 29
The Examiner found Howarter teaches a communications service
provider system including a mapping graphical user interface configured to
allow multiple customer service representatives to verify and record service
availability for multiple customers' geographic locations (e.g., addresses).
See Final Act. 5-7 (citing Howarter i-fi-12, 44, 49-55, 57-58; Figs. 5, 6A,
6B); see also Ans. 16. The Examiner further found Schell teaches a tracking
system configured to track repairs of physical plants by technicians during
maintenance of a public switched telephone network ("PSTN") via a
searchable database, and to generate statistics regarding the progress of the
repairs in response to a query of the database. See Final Act. 7 (citing Schell
i-fi-1 3-8, 39-42; Figs. 7, 9); see also Ans. 16. As found by the Examiner, it
4
Appeal2018-000946
Application 13/684,971
would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, at the time the
invention was made, to modify the communication service provider system
taught by Howarter to track a status of each address service verification by
each operator and to generate statistics regarding the tracked statuses, based
on the teaching of Schell. See Final Act. 7-8. The Examiner further found
Fleenor teaches a tracking system configured to track statuses of Digital
Subscriber Line ("DSL") devices and sites and generate visualized statistics
as charts showing number of lines wired, equipped, in use, and unused, over
time. See Final Act. 8 (citing Fleenor i-fi-15-7, 53, 61---64, 79, Figs. 3, 8); see
also Ans. 18. As further found by the Examiner, it would have been obvious
to one of ordinary skill in the art, at the time the invention was made, to
modify the communication service provider system taught by Howarter and
modified with Schell to visualize the statistics regarding each address
service verification assigned to each operator by charting each status of each
service verification for each address over time. See Final Act. 8. As also
found by the Examiner, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill
in the art, at the time the invention was made, to replace the line chart taught
by Fleenor with a bar chart, as it was well known that the same dataset could
be visualized as different types of charts, such as a line chart or bar chart.
See id.
Appellants contend the combination of Howarter, Reddick, Schell,
and Fleenor does not teach or suggest "generate statistics related to the
multiple different users' validation of the plurality of addresses ... wherein
the generated statistics further include a progress of the validation, by a first
one of the multiple different users, of a first portion of the plurality of
addresses over time," and "track the validation of the first portion of the
5
Appeal2018-000946
Application 13/684,971
plurality of addresses by the first one of the multiple different users over
time, and generate a bar chart that tracks a total number of the first portion
of the plurality of addresses successfully validated by the first one of the
multiple different users over a certain period of time," as recited in claim 29
because:
HOWARTER merely discloses a graphical user interface that
enables a customer service representative to display the
availability of one or more of multiple different communications
services ... at a particular customer address via a system map
displayed within the graphical user interface. In HOWARTER,
the system map is displayed within a graphical user interface and
the customer service representative elects to display the services
that are available at a particular customer address .... SCHELL
merely discloses search results that display statistics associated
with PSTN service reinstallation orders, occurring within
multiple districts of a PSTN (each having a different, responsible
network vice president), where the statistics detail a percentage
of reinstallation orders that required dispatch of a service
technician. The search results display of SCHELL is, thus,
directed to tracking dispatch requirements for maintenance
technicians organized by company division and its
corresponding responsible employee (e.g., network vice
president of that company division). The combination of the
disclosures of HOWARTER and SCHELL would, therefore,
result in a system that displays a map within a graphical user
interface, displays network services that are available at a
particular customer address, and displays statistics detailing a
percentage of PSTN service reinstallation orders that required
dispatch of a service technician.
Contrary to the allegations of the final Office Action, the
combination of HOWARTER and SCHELL would not disclose,
suggest, or render obvious the features "generate statistics
related to the multiple different users' validation of the
plurality of addresses ... wherein the generated statistics
include a progress of validation, by a first one of the multiple
6
Appeal2018-000946
Application 13/684,971
different users of a first portion of the plurality of addresses
over time" of claim 29.
FLEENOR merely discloses a tracking tool that enables a user to
display capacity and utilization "statistics" of particular selected
DSL devices in a DSL network. The combination of the
disclosure of HOWARTER and FLEENOR would, therefore,
result in a system that displays a map within a graphical user
interface, displays network services that are available at a
particular customer address, and displays capacity and
utilization statistics of particular DSL devices in a network.
Contrary to the allegations of the final Office Action, the
combination of HOW ARTER and FLEENOR would not
disclose, suggest, or render obvious the features "track the
validation of the first portion of the plurality of addresses by the
first one of the multiple different users over time, and generate
a chart that tracks a total number of the first portion of the
plurality of addresses successfully validated by the first one of
the multiple different users over a certain period of time" of
claim 29.
App. Br. 16-17, 19 (Appellants' emphasis omitted; panel's emphasis added).
In response, the Examiner further found:
Both HOWARTER and SCHELL are m the same field of
endeavor as for managing telecommunication services using
computer software .... There are several exemplary rationales
outlined in MPEP § 2143 that support a conclusion of
obviousness such as "Use of known technique to improve
similar devices (methods, or products) in the same way" and
"Applying a known technique to a known device (method, or
product) ready for improvement to yield predictable results".
HOWARTER, in view of REDDICK, already teach the feature
of having a user to verify and record the service availabilities for
each customer/address (serving as a "base" method), but does
not expressly teach to generate statistics about the progress or
result of such verification (serving as the improvement as
claimed).
7
Appeal2018-000946
Application 13/684,971
The teaching of SCHELL for generating statistics to be used in
the telecommunication environment serves as a known
technique to improve a similar known method (HOWARTER,
in view of REDDICK, having a user to verify and record the
service availabilities for each customer/address) in the same way
(displaying statistics) to yield predictable results (the data to be
displayed is already obtained, thus the content in the statistics is
predictable).
Accordingly, one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the
invention was made, would have modified the inter/ aces of
SCHELL and adapt those interfaces to the address validation
of HOWARTER-REDDICK, for showing the results of the
address validation.
Both HOWARTER and FLEENOR are in the same field of
endeavor as for managing telecommunication services using
computer software.
HOWARTER, in view of REDDICK, and further in view of
SCHELL, already teach the feature of having a user to verify and
record the service availabilities for each customer/ address, and
to generate statistics to reflect the verification results (serving as
a "base" method), but does not expressly teach to generate
statistics about the progress or result of such verification using a
bar chart (serving as the improvement as claimed).
The teaching of FLEENOR for generating statistics to be used in
the telecommunication environment serves as a known
technique to improve a similar known method (HOWARTER,
in view of REDDICK, and further in view of SCHELL, having a
user to verify and record the service availabilities for each
customer/ address, and to generate statistics to reflect the
verification results) in the same way (displaying a chart) to yield
8
Appeal2018-000946
Application 13/684,971
predictable results (the data to be displayed in a chart is already
obtained, thus the content in the chart is predictable).
Accordingly, one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the
invention was made, would have modified the charts of
SCHELL and adapt those charts to the address validation
statistics of HOWARTER-REDDICK-SCHELL, for showing
the results of the address validation in a chart.
Ans. 16-19 (Examiner's emphasis omitted; panel's emphasis added)
In rebuttal, Appellants contend:
The comparable method of FLEENOR, which displays capacity
and utilization data for particular DSL devices in a DSL network,
does not improve the base method of HOWARTER, REDDICK,
and SCHELL in the same way as the claimed invention, which
is a requirement of the "Use of Known Technique ... "
obviousness rationale. The Answer's characterization (pgs. 18-
19) of the alleged improvement of FLEENOR as generating
statistics about the progress of verification "using a bar chart"
over-generalizes the alleged "improvement" of FLEENOR,
without regard to the data actually being displayed in
FLEENOR (i.e., two dimensional display of capacity and
utilization data), allowing the Answer to essentially ignore the
per-user validation tracking "improvement" of the claimed
invention. The claimed invention of the present invention does
not just merely recite "displaying a chart" (i.e., the improvement
alleged by the Answer on pg. 19), but recites per-user address
validation tracking, of multiple different users, including
receiving, from multiple different users at multiple different user
devices, user input that comprises validation of a plurality of
addresses, and tracking the validation of the first portion of the
plurality of addresses by the first one of the multiple different
users over time; and generating a bar chart that tracks a total
number of the first portion of the plurality of addresses
successfully validated by the first one of the multiple different
users over a certain period of time. None of the references cited,
including HOWARTER, REDDICK, SCHELL, or FLEENOR,
9
Appeal2018-000946
Application 13/684,971
either singly or in combination disclose or even suggest this
"improvement" recited in the claimed invention.
Reply Br. 6-7 (Appellants' emphasis omitted; panel's emphasis added)
We are not persuaded of Examiner error. "The combination of
familiar elements according to known methods is likely to be obvious when
it does no more than yield predictable results." KSR, 550 U.S. at 416. If a
technique has been used to improve one device and a person of ordinary skill
in the art would recognize that it would improve similar devices in the same
way, using the technique is obvious unless its actual application is beyond
his or her skill. Id. at 417.
We agree with the Examiner's findings that:
1. Howarter teaches a system that receives and stores
information related to validation of service availability for
multiple addresses by multiple users;
2. Schell teaches generating statistics regarding network
maintenance including progress of network maintenance,
where the statistics are organized by employees;
3. Fleenor teaches tracking statuses of DSL device and site
statuses and generating visualized statistics (e.g., line
charts) regarding the tracked statuses;
4. it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in
the art, at the time the claimed invention was made, to
improve the system taught by Howarter to generate
statistics related to multiple users' validation of multiple
addresses, where the statistics include progress of
validation by a user of a portion of addresses over time, in
light of Schell' s teaching of generating statistics;
10
Appeal2018-000946
Application 13/684,971
5. it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in
the art, at the time the claimed invention was made, to
improve the system taught by Howarter to track validation
of a portion of addresses over time and generating
visualized statistics that track a total number of the portion
of addresses successfully validated by a user over a certain
period of time in light of Fleenor's teaching of tracking
validation statuses and generating visualized statistics
regarding the tracked validation statuses; and
6. it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in
the art, at the time the claimed invention was made, to
replace a line chart, as taught by Fleenor, with a bar chart.
See Final Act. 5-7; see also Ans. 16-19. Contrary to Appellants' argument,
the combination of cited references does teach or suggest that the tracked
validation, and the statistics that are generated based on the tracked
validation, are user-specific, as Schell teaches that maintenance statistics are
organized by employee. See e.g., Schell i-f 8 ("the information [associated
with maintenance tasks] is stored in the searchable database based on the
employee responsible for a district ... the information is displayed
organized based on the employee responsible for a district").
Accordingly, Appellants have not shown the Examiner erred in
rejecting claim 29 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a).
B. Claim 58
Claim 5 8 recites that "the generated statistics further include a
progress of the validation, by a second one of the multiple different users, of
11
Appeal2018-000946
Application 13/684,971
a second portion of the plurality of addresses over time." The Examiner
found that the combination of Howarter, Reddick, Schell, and Fleenor also
teaches or suggests this claim element, as Schell discloses statistics
regarding progress of maintenance repairs associated with multiple
employees. See Final Act. 10-11; see also Ans. 19. Appellants contend the
combination of Howarter, Reddick, Schell, and Fleenor fail to teach the
aforementioned claim element for similar reasons as to why the
aforementioned combination fails to teach or suggest "generate statistics
related to the multiple different users' validation of the plurality of addresses
... wherein the generated statistics further include a progress of the
validation, by a first one of the multiple different users, of a first portion of
the plurality of addresses over time," as recited in claim 29. See App.
Br. 29.
We are not persuaded by this argument for reasons similar to the
reasons we do not find Appellants' argument persuasive regarding claim 29,
as described above. Accordingly, Appellants have not shown the Examiner
erred in rejecting claim 58 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a).
CONCLUSIONS
(1) The Examiner has not erred in rejecting claims 29, 32, 36, 39, and
58-74 as being unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a).
(2) Claims 29, 32, 36, 39, and 58-74 are not patentable.
DECISION
We affirm the Examiner's rejection of claims 29, 32, 36, 39, and 58-
74 as being unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a).
12
Appeal2018-000946
Application 13/684,971
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
13