Ex Parte Singh et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Jun 28, 2016

12434750 (P.T.A.B. Jun. 28, 2016)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE
12/434,750 0510412009
136582 7590 06/30/2016
STEVENS & SHOWALTER, LLP
Box AVAYA Inc.
7019 Corporate Way
Dayton, OH 45459-4238
FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
Navjot Singh
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.
508066-US-NP/AVA024PA 1942
EXAMINER
INTAVONG, JIRAPON
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2652
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
06/30/2016 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 NA VJOT SINGH, SAURABH BAGCHI, and YU-SUNG WU
Appeal2014-009452
Application 12/434,7501
Technology Center 2600
Before ELENI MANTIS MERCADER, NORMAN H. BEAMER, and
JOHN D. HAMANN, Administrative Patent Judges.
HAMANN, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
Appellants file this appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the
Examiner's Final Rejection of claims 1-3, 5-7, 9, 10, 12, 13, and 15-18.
We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). We reverse.
THE CLAIMED INVENTION
Appellants' claimed invention relates to "the prevention of annoying
telephone calls." Spec. i-f 1. Claim 1 is illustrative of the subject matter of
the appeal and is reproduced below with emphasis added to highlight the
dispositive disputed limitation.
1. A method comprising:
1 According to Appellants, the real party in interest is Avaya, Inc. Br. 4.
Appeal2014-009452
Application 12/434,750
receiving a request to establish a telephone call from a
caller; and
transmitting one of:
(i) an indication that the telephone call will be
established as requested, and
(ii) an indication that the telephone call will not be
established as requested,
based on a weighted indicium of a temporal characteristic
of a previous telephone call from the caller,
wherein the weighting of the indicium comprises a
function of feedback for calls used to generate the temporal
characteristic, and
wherein the weighted indicium of the temporal
characteristic is based on the ratio of time in which the caller
of the previous telephone call spoke divided by the time in
which the called-party spoke.
REJECTIONS ON APPEAL
(1) The Examiner rejected claims 1-3, 6, 7, and 10 under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103 (a) as being unpatentable over the combination of Tartarelli et al.
(US 2009/0202057 1A .. l; Aug. 13, 2009) (hereinafter "Tartarelli"), Piche
(US 2010/0226261 Al; Sept. 9, 2010) (hereinafter "Piche"), and Bozionek
(US 2010/0034121 Al; Feb. 11, 2010), collectively referred to as the
"combination."
(2) The Examiner rejected claims 5, 9, 12, and 13 under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103 (a) as being unpatentable over the combination of Tartarelli, Piche,
Bozionek, and Barclay et al. (US 2006/0291641 A 1; Dec. 28, 2006)
(hereinafter "Barclay").
(3) The Examiner rejected claims 15-18 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a)
as being unpatentable over the combination of Tartarelli, Piche, Bozionek,
and Nucci et al. (US 8,045,464 Bl; Oct. 25, 2011) (hereinafter "Nucci").
2
Appeal2014-009452
Application 12/434,750
DISPOSITIVE ISSUE ON APPEAL
For this appeal, the dispositive issue is whether the Examiner erred in
finding the combination teaches or suggests "wherein the weighted indicium
of the temporal characteristic is based on the ratio of time in which the caller
of the previous telephone call spoke divided by the time in which the called-
party spoke," as recited in claim 1 and similarly recited in claims 6, 10, and
13.
ANALYSIS
We have reviewed the Examiner's rejections in light of Appellants'
contentions that the Examiner erred. We find Appellants' arguments with
respect to the dispositive issue persuasive.
Appellants argue the combination, and Bozionek in particular, fails to
teach or suggest the disputed limitation. Br. 10. Specifically, Appellants
argue Bozionek instead teaches "calculat[ing] a speech pause/speech
duration ratio based only upon the caller, i.e., the time the caller paused
divided by the time the caller spoke." Id. (citing Bozionek i-f 36).
Appellants contrast this teaching with the claims, which require a "ratio of
time in which the caller of the previous telephone call spoke divided by the
time in which the called-party spoke. These are two, separate parties." Id.
Appellants further argue that the called-party's speech time is unrelated to
the caller's pause time, and vice versa, because, for example, both parties
can be silent or speaking at the same time. Br. 10-12.
The Examiner finds one or ordinary skill in the art would have known
how to modify Bozionek's teachings-the speech pause/speech duration
ratio of the caller - to calculate a ratio of speech pause/speech ratio for a
3
Appeal2014-009452
Application 12/434,750
called-party. Ans. 17. The Examiner also finds Tartarelli teaches using the
called-party's previous behavior to identify undesired calls based on the
length of the call- i.e., calls that fall below a pre-defined length of time
and were ended by the called-party. See id. (citing Tartarelli i-f 15). The
Examiner thus finds, based on the combination's teachings, that one of
ordinary skill would have been motivated to "use other temporal
characteristics of a call, including the ratio of caller speech to called party
speech, in order to determine the probability an incoming call is an
undesired call." Ans. 18.
We find Appellants' arguments persuasive. We agree with Appellants
that the cited portions of the combination fail to teach or suggest the
disputed limitation. Bozionek teaches ratios that are based only on the
caller's behavior. See Bozionek i-f 36. Similarly, Tartarelli teaches
evaluating only one party's previous behavior to ascertain whether the call is
undesired, and although Tartarelli focuses on the called-party, there is no
teaching regarding the speech or silence of the called-party. See Tartarelli
i-f 15. The claims require a ratio that is based on the caller and called-party's
behavior, as well as speech duration of the called party, neither of which are
taught. See Br. 15-17 (Claim Appendix); Bozionek i-f 36; Tartarelli i-f 15.
The Examiner's finding that one of ordinary skill in the art would have
found it obvious to use a ratio having these temporal characteristics is
unsupported by the record evidence.
Accordingly, we do not sustain the rejection of claim 1, nor claims 6,
10, and 13, which similarly recite the disputed limitation, as well as claims
2, 3, 5, 7, 9, 12, and 15-18, which depend therefrom, and, thus, also
incorporate this limitation.
4
Appeal2014-009452
Application 12/434,750
DECISION
We reverse the Examiner's§ 103 rejections of claims 1-3, 5-7, 9, 10,
12, 13, and 15-18.
REVERSED
5