Ex Parte Ravin et al

Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences

Apr 30, 2010

10926154 (B.P.A.I. Apr. 30, 2010)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
__________

BEFORE THE BOARD OF PATENT APPEALS
AND INTERFERENCES
__________

Ex parte YAEL RAVIN, JAMES J. SHARPE, and EDITH H. STERN
__________

Appeal 2009-006060
Application 10/926,154
Technology Center 2100
__________

Decided: April 30, 2010
__________

Before LEE E. BARRETT, STEPHEN C. SIU, and
DEBRA K. STEPHENS, Administrative Patent Judges.

SIU, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL

STATEMENT OF THE CASE
This is a decision on appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the
Examiner’s rejection of claims 1, 16, 32, and 43. Claim 15 is canceled. No
Appeal 2009-006060
Application 10/926,154

2
rejections are outstanding regarding claims 2-14, 17-31, and 33-42.1 We
have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We affirm.
Invention
The invention relates to efficiently allocating expert resources in
knowledge management systems (Spec. 1, ¶ [0001]).
Independent claim 1 is illustrative:
1. A knowledge management system allocating expert
resources, said knowledge management system
comprising:
a plurality of devices communicating information
requests from associated requestors;
expert data storage storing expert data in an expert
database;
requestor data storage storing data on said
associated requestors in a requestor database; and
a pairing unit pairing information requests with
appropriate experts, said pairing unit determining
an associated requestor for each incoming request,
matching both requestor data for said associated
requestor and said incoming request with expert
data for available experts, and selecting an
appropriate expert from said available experts.

1 The Examiner withdraws the 35 U.S.C. § 101 rejection of claims 1-14 and
16-42 (Ans. 3). The Examiner no longer lists 35 U.S.C. § 112 as a ground of
rejection, thus we consider that rejection withdrawn (App. Br. 17).
Appeal 2009-006060
Application 10/926,154

3
Reference
The Examiner relies upon the following reference as evidence in
support of the rejection:
Brown US 7,139,390 B2 Nov. 21, 2006
(filed Dec. 12, 2001)
Rejection
Claims 1, 16, 32, and 43 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 102(e) as
being anticipated by Brown.
ISSUES
Issue 1
The Examiner finds that in Brown “the caller does not select the
expert . . . the caller selects the kind of service required and the system
decides which expert is next to answer such a call” (Ans. 12).
Appellants submit that “[w]hile Brown et al. teaches filtering
available experts, if a caller wants to select an expert, Brown et al. very
clearly teaches the caller/requester making that selection” (App. Br. 18)
(footnotes omitted).
Issue: Did the Examiner err in finding that Brown teaches a pairing
unit pairing information requests with appropriate experts?
Issue 2
The Examiner finds that Brown’s system “looks at the caller’s profile
and the selected service options . . . in order to match the caller with an
expert” (Ans. 15).
Appeal 2009-006060
Application 10/926,154

4
Appellants submit that “Brown et al. does not even mention analyzing
the request, much less combining analysis results with results from
analyzing the requestor” (App. Br. 19).
Issue: Did the Examiner err in finding that Brown teaches
determining request/requestor attributes for an incoming request?
FINDINGS OF FACT
The following Findings of Fact (FF) are shown by a preponderance of
the evidence:
1. Brown teaches that “a voice identifier (VID) representing the
authenticated caller identity is transferred as a signal for
identifying the caller” (col. 7, ll. 36-38).
2. Brown teaches that “service options are first filtered according to
the caller profile associated with the VID of the call . . . . For
example, if a caller profile indicates that the caller does not want to
be offered freelance expert options, the service options are tailored
accordingly” (col. 11, ll. 55-62).
3. Brown teaches that “for a caller to select from freelance experts,
the caller may first enter the topic of the caller query. Then, the
caller is prompted to select from among the freelance experts able
to handle the query” (col. 12, ll. 17-20).
4. Brown teaches that “[o]n hold system 42 may first access a profile
for the RVID [reverse VID] that indicates the level of skill of the
Appeal 2009-006060
Application 10/926,154

5
expert [or] the RVID may include an indication of the skill level of
the expert included by authentication system 48” (col. 15, ll. 4-7).
5. Brown teaches that “expected experts selection 61 may only
include a single expected expert” (col. 15, ll. 13-15).
PRINCIPLES OF LAW
Claim interpretation
“In the patentability context, claims are to be given their broadest
reasonable interpretations. . . . [L]imitations are not to be read into the
claims from the specification.” In re Van Geuns, 988 F.2d 1181, 1184 (Fed.
Cir. 1993) (citations omitted). A claim meaning is reasonable if one of
ordinary skill in the art would understand the claim, read in light of the
specification, to encompass the meaning. See In re Am. Acad. of Sci. Tech
Ctr., 367 F.3d 1359, 1364 (Fed. Cir. 2004).
Anticipation
In rejecting claims under 35 U.S.C. § 102, “[a] single prior art
reference that discloses, either expressly or inherently, each limitation of a
claim invalidates that claim by anticipation.” Perricone v. Medicis Pharm.
Corp., 432 F.3d 1368, 1375 (Fed. Cir. 2005) (citation omitted).
ANALYSIS
Issue 1
Appellants challenge the finding that Brown teaches a pairing unit.
Based on Appellants’ arguments in the Appeal Brief, we will decide the
Appeal 2009-006060
Application 10/926,154

6
appeal of claims 1 and 43 with respect to this issue on the basis of claim 1
alone. See 37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(1)(vii).
Contrary to Appellants’ arguments, Brown’s teaching are not limited
to a “caller/requestor making [an expert] selection” (App. Br. 18). Brown’s
on hold system authenticates a caller’s identity (FF 1). The system then uses
the caller profile to determine what type of experts (if any) the caller might
accept (FF 2). This limits the set of eligible experts based on attributes of
the caller (the requestor). Brown also teaches use of a caller’s selected topic
(the request) to further limit the set of eligible experts (FF 3). Only those
experts able to handle the query are offered (id.), which can be based on
expert skill level (FF 4). Thus, Brown teaches a pairing unit (on hold
system) pairing information requests with appropriate experts (limiting the
set of eligible experts), said pairing unit determining (authenticating the
caller and accessing the caller profile) an associated requestor for each
incoming request, matching both requestor data (caller profile) for said
associated requestor and said incoming request (selected topic) with expert
data (expert skill level) for available experts, and selecting (offering the set
of eligible experts) an appropriate expert from said available experts
Appellants submit that “the caller is prompted to select from among
the freelance experts able to handle the query” (Reply Br. 3) (footnote
omitted). Despite Appellants’ assertion, Brown’s system selects experts able
to handle the query before offering them to the caller (FF 2-3). Brown’s
system may even select only a single expert (FF 5).
Appeal 2009-006060
Application 10/926,154

7
For at least these reasons, we find no evidence persuasive of error in
the Examiner’s 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) rejection of claim 1, and claim 43 which
falls therewith.
Issue 2
Appellants challenge the finding that Brown teaches determining
request/requestor attributes. Based on Appellants’ arguments in the Appeal
Brief, we will decide the appeal of claims 16 and 32 with respect to issue 2
on the basis of claim 16 alone. See 37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(1)(vii).
Appellants further submit that “Brown et al. does not even mention
analyzing the request, must less combining analysis results with results from
analyzing the requestor” (Reply Br. 3). This is not persuasive of error
because these limitations are not found in the claim. Nonetheless,
Appellants’ description of request/requestor attributes is illustrative of the
scope of the step of determining request/requestor attributes for an incoming
request:
Such request/requestor pair attributes may include . . . but are
not limited to the domain of inquiry, an anticipated requestor
skill level within this domain of inquiry, the anticipated
response duration, the value of a response to the requestor (e.g.,
for value pricing). . . . Once request attributes and requestor
attributes have been analyzed . . . the analysis results are
combined to determine unique attributes for the request as
paired with the requestor.
(Spec. 9-10, ¶ [0026]) (emphasis added).
The Specification fails to provide an explicit definition of
Request/requestor attributes and Appellants do not give a minimal set of
Appeal 2009-006060
Application 10/926,154

8
attributes that must constitute determined request/requestor attributes. Thus,
we adopt a broad but reasonable interpretation of determined
request/requestor attributes to include attributes that fit within the superclass
of request/requestor attributes, the superclass consisting of request and
requestor attributes subclasses. Because no minimal set of attributes is
listed, a system that determines either request or requestor attributes also
determines request/requestor attributes.
Even if the claim requires determination of both request and requestor
attributes, we still would not find error in the rejection. Brown uses the
authenticated caller identity and caller profile to determine caller preferences
(requestor attributes) (FF 1-2). Brown also can obtain and use a topic of the
caller query (request attribute) (FF 3). Therefore, Brown teaches
determining request/requestor attributes (caller preferences and topic of
caller query) for an incoming request.
For at least these reasons, we find no evidence persuasive of error in
the Examiner’s 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) rejection of claim 16, and claim 32 which
falls therewith.
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
Based on the findings of facts and analysis above, we find no
evidence persuasive of error:
1. that the Examiner erred in finding that Brown teaches a pairing
unit pairing information requests with appropriate experts and
Appeal 2009-006060
Application 10/926,154

9
2. that the Examiner erred in finding that Brown teaches determining
request/requestor attributes for an incoming request.
DECISION
We affirm the Examiner’s decision rejecting claims 1, 16, 32, and 43
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)(1)(iv).

AFFIRMED

msc

LAW OFFICE OF CHARLES W. PETERSON, JR. Yorktown
435B Carlisle Dr.
Herndon VA 20170