Ex Parte Shaffer et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Jan 8, 2018

13787627 (P.T.A.B. Jan. 8, 2018)

United States Patent and Trademark Office
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.
13/787,627 03/06/2013 Shmuel Shaffer 413029-US-NP/AVA056PA 8171
136582 7590 01/10/2018
STEVENS & SHOWALTER, LLP
Box AVAYA Inc.
7019 Corporate Way
Dayton, OH 45459-4238
EXAMINER
GORTAYO, DANGELINO N
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2168
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
01/10/2018 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):
pto @ sspatlaw. com
pair_avaya@ firsttofile.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte SHMUEL SHAFFER and REINHARD P. KLEMM1
Appeal 2017-006178
Application 13/787,627
Technology Center 2100
Before ROBERT E. NAPPI, ST. JOHN COURTENAY III, and
ERIC S. FRAHM, 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 Final
Rejection of claims 1 through 20. We have jurisdiction over the pending
claims under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We affirm.
1 According to Appellants, the real party in interest is Avaya Inc. See App.
Br. 3.
Appeal 2017-006178
Application 13/787,627
INVENTION
Appellants’ disclosed invention relates to a training system for
providing training to agents of an enterprise. See Abstract of Appellants’
Specification. Claim 1 is illustrative of the invention and reproduced below:
1. A training system for training agents of an enterprise,
comprising:
a memory device storing executable instructions;
a processor, the processor communicatively coupled to
the memory device, the processor when executing the
executable instructions:
retrieves content from at least one predetermined
resource;
determines at least one topic based on the retrieved
content;
selects an answer for the at least one topic from the
retrieved content based upon predefined rules;
updates, based on the retrieved content, a
knowledge database communicatively coupled to the
processor with the at least one topic and the answer based
on at least:
a volume of messaging in the content
involving the at least one topic; and
an associated age of the messaging
involving the at least one topic; and
reports the at least one topic and the answer to one
or more agent terminals of the enterprise.
REJECTION AT ISSUE
The Examiner rejected claims 1 through 20 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as
unpatentable over Robinson (US 8,769,417 Bl, issued July 1, 2014), Cooper
2
Appeal 2017-006178
Application 13/787,627
(US 8,781,813 B2, issued July 15, 2014), and Azzam (US 8,560,567 B2,
issued Oct. 15, 2013). Final Act. 3-16.2
ANALYSIS
We have reviewed Appellants’ arguments in the Briefs, the
Examiner’s rejections, and the Examiner’s response to Appellants’
arguments. Appellants’ arguments have not persuaded us of error in the
Examiner’s determination that the claims are unpatentable.
Appellants argue, on pages 7 through 11 of the Appeal Brief and
pages 2 through 6 of the Reply Brief, that the Examiner’s rejection of claim
1 is in error. Appellants’ arguments present us with the following issues:
1) Did the Examiner err in finding the combination of Robinson,
Cooper, and Azzam teaches retrieving content from a resource as
recited in claim 1?
2) Did the Examiner err in finding the skilled artisan would combine
the teachings of Robinson and Cooper as the references would not
perform the claimed functions when combined?
Appellants’ arguments directed to the first issue assert the rejection of
independent claim 1 is in error as Cooper teaches that the query, which the
Examiner equates to the claimed content, is received and not retrieved as
claimed. App. Br. 8-9. Appellants argue that receiving is passive whereas
2 Throughout this opinion we refer to the Appeal Brief filed September 23,
2016, Reply Brief filed February 20, 2017, the Final Office Action mailed
May 11, 2016, and the Examiner’s Answer mailed on December 22, 2016.
3
Appeal 2017-006178
Application 13/787,627
the claimed system which retrieves the data is active and thus different from
the system of Cooper. App Br. 9-11; Reply Br. 2^1.
The Examiner provides an extensive response on pages 3 through 5 of
the Answer. The Examiner finds that Cooper teaches an embodiment where
the logged queries are analyzed and used to update intent categories (which
the Examiner equates to the claimed step of updating a knowledge database)
via a matching process. Id. The Examiner finds that this embodiment
teaches an active process where the queries are retrieved. Id.
We find a preponderance of the evidence supports the Examiner’s
findings. We particularly note the Examiner also found that Robinson
teaches retrieving data (content) which the Appellants ’ arguments have not
addressed. Final Act. 3 (citing Robinson, col. 6,11. 21-30); see also
Robinson Abstract. Thus, the Examiner has also shown that retrieving
content (i.e., content requested) is known in the art, and as such Examiner
has also shown that in combination with the other references in the rejection
having Cooper retrieve the information would be obvious. Accordingly,
Appellants’ arguments directed to the first issue have not persuaded us of
error in the Examiner’s rejection.
Appellants’ arguments directed to the second issue assert the rejection
of independent claim 1 is in error because if “the ‘content’ retrieved by
Robinson was modified to be the ‘queries’ received by Cooper, then
Robinson could no longer effectively ‘select an answer for the at least one
topic from the retrieved content’ as required by claim 1.” App. Br. 11;
Reply Br. 5-6.
4
Appeal 2017-006178
Application 13/787,627
In response, the Examiner states the rejection is based upon:
Robinson teaching a method and system of identifying answers
to questions determined to be in discussion forum content and
storing matching question and answers in a discussion data
store being modified with Cooper’s ability to update the intent
categories of queries logged in a database based on frequency
of queries received over a period of time by matching logged
queries with intent categories and further modified with
Azzam’s ability to store pairs of automatically determined
question and answer pairs in a store that is accessible to
users .... The motivation for combining the prior art of
Robinson, Cooper, and Azzam is that doing so would be
provide more relevant responses to user queries, as stated in
column 1 lines 6-15 of Cooper.
Answer 6.
We concur with the Examiner, because: (1) Robinson teaches
analyzing data (answers to questions) to perform one function, (2) Cooper
teaches analyzing data to perform another function, and the Examiner is
combining these teachings to perform both functions. Appellants’ argument
is based upon a bodily incorporation of one references teaching into the
other and assuming that the data (claimed content) contains only queries as
is asserted that Cooper teaches. “The test for obviousness is not whether the
features of a secondary reference may be bodily incorporated into the
structure of the primary reference .... Rather, the test is what the combined
teachings of the references would have suggested to those of ordinary skill
in the art.” In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 425 (CCPA 1981). See also In re
Sneed, 710 F.2d 1544, 1550 (Fed. Cir. 1983) (“[I]t is not necessary that the
inventions of the references be physically combinable to render obvious the
invention under review.”); and In re Nievelt, 482 F.2d 965, 968 (CCPA
1973) (“Combining the teachings of references does not involve an ability to
5
Appeal 2017-006178
Application 13/787,627
combine their specific structures.”). Further, we do not find that Cooper
identifies that the content must contain only queries, and cannot contain
other data such as answers and the questions as discussed in Robinson.
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 rejection of claim 1 and claims 2
through 12, grouped with claim 1. See 37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(l)(iv).
Appellants’ arguments with respect to the rejection of claim 13
through 19 assert the rejection is in error for the same reason as claim 1.
App. Br. 12. Similarly, Appellants ague the Examiner’s rejection of claims
13 through 20 is in error of the same reason as claim 1. As we discussed
above, we are not persuaded of error in the Examiner’s rejection of claim 1,
accordingly, we similarly sustain the Examiner’s rejection of claims 13
through 20.
DECISION
We sustain the Examiner’s rejection of claims 1 through 20.
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). See 37 C.F.R.
§ 1.136(a)(l)(iv).
AFFIRMED
6