Ex Parte Singh et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Jul 28, 2016

11553888 (P.T.A.B. Jul. 28, 2016)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE
111553,888 10/27/2006
25537 7590 08/01/2016
VERIZON
PA TENT MANAGEMENT GROUP
1320 North Court House Road
9th Floor
ARLINGTON, VA 22201-2909
FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
SumitSingh
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.
20060221 4492
EXAMINER
ORTIZ ROMAN, DENISSE Y
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
3627
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
08/01/2016 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):
patents@verizon.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte SUMIT SINGH, KATHERINE RICKER BROWN,
SANJIV SHAH, JAVIER MARTINEZ, VENKATESWARA NAGARAPU,
and LEENA NAIDU
Appeal2014-005122
Application 11/553,888 1
Technology Center 3600
Before MICHAEL W. KIM, BRUCE T. WIEDER, and
ROBERT J. SILVERMAN, Administrative Patent Judges.
SILVERMAN, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
The Appellants appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Examiner's
decision rejecting claims 1, 3-9, 11-17, and 19-24. We have jurisdiction
under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b ).
We REVERSE.
1 According to the Appellants, the real party in interest is "Verizon
Communications Inc. and its subsidiary companies, which currently include
Verizon Business Global, LLC (formerly MCI, LLC) and Cellco Partnership
(doing business as Verizon Wireless, and which includes as a minority
partner affiliates of Vodafone Group Plc ). " Appeal Br. 1.
Appeal2014-005122
Application 11/553,888
ILLUSTRATIVE CLAIM
1. A computer-implemented method comprising:
receiving a sales order at a processor;
selecting, by the processor, one of a plurality of
implementation centers for fulfilling a sales order based on one
of a plurality of rules stored in a database, wherein the sales order
is stored in one of a plurality of queues that are mapped to the
implementation centers and the queues are mapped to the
implementation centers based on the rules;
determining whether an automation flag is set; and
further selecting, by the processor, an agent among a
plurality of agents for handling the sales order based on another
rule of the plurality of rules stored in the database,
wherein the plurality of implementation centers for
fulfilling a sales order are subdivided into the plurality of queues
and at least one of the plurality of agents is assigned to a specific
queue of the plurality of queues.
REJECTION
Claims 1, 3-9, 11-17, and 19-24 are rejected under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a) as unpatentable over Berkelhamer et al. (US 2007 /0088590 Al,
published Apr. 19, 2007) ("Berkelhamer"), Bunting et al. (US 6,134,530,
issued Oct. 17, 2000) ("Bunting"), Bushey et al. (US 2010/0063800 Al,
published Mar. 11, 2010) ("Bushey"), and Mariani et al. (US 2005/0050387
Al, published Mar. 3, 2005) ("Mariani").
FINDINGS OF FACT
The findings of fact relied upon, which are supported by a
preponderance of the evidence, appear in the following Analysis.
2
Appeal2014-005122
Application 11/553,888
ANALYSIS
The Appellants contend that the Examiner erred in rejecting
independent claim 1 because the cited references fail to disclose or render
obvious the limitation of "determining whether an automation flag is set"
(emphasis added) and that the Examiner likewise erred with regard to
similarly recited limitations of independent claims 9 and 17. Appeal Br. 9-
10. Claims 1, 9, and 17 are argued as a group; claim 1 is selected for
analysis herein. See 37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(l)(iv).
In view of the claim language itself and the Specification, the claimed
"determining whether an automation flag is set" specifies whether the
selection of an "agent" (also called an "order handler," in the Specification)
is performed by an automated process, as opposed to a manual one. See
Spec. i-fi-123, 29-30, Fig. 3. Thus, the Specification explains (referring to
Figure 3): "If no automation is specified, manual routing is performed, per
step 312. However, if the flag indicates that automation should proceed, the
workflow router 101 retrieves rules for selection of the order handler from
the rules database 205 (step 313)." Spec. i130. Accordingly, following the
step that recites "determining whether an automation flag is set," claim 1
calls for "further selecting, by the processor, an agent among a plurality of
agents for handling the sales order based on another rule of the plurality of
rules stored in the database." In other words, here, "automation" in
"automation flag" actually has an independent meaning and, thus, cannot be
met by a disclosure of a mere "flag."
According to the Final Office Action, Mariani discloses the limitation
in question. Final Action 5 (citing Mariani i-f l 06, claim 10).
3
Appeal2014-005122
Application 11/553,888
Although the cited portions of Mariani refer to verifying or checking
the validity of "flags" - albeit, in the context of monitoring the operation of
a microcontroller - there is no teaching in Mariani of "an automation flag"
that, per claim 1, determines whether any subsequent process step is
performed automatically, rather than manually. See Appeal Br. 9-10; see
also Reply Br. 5. Therefore, the cited portions of Mariani fail to show the
claimed "automation flag." Accordingly, the Appellants' argument is
persuasive of error in the rejection of claim 1.
The Appellants also question the sufficiency of the Examiner's
proposed reason for combining the teachings of Mariani with those of the
other cited references. Appeal Br. 10. According to the Examiner, it would
have been obvious to apply Mariani's flag-verification technique to the
system disclosed in Berkelhamer "because it would be a technological
upgrade to the system of Berkelhamer and the result is predictable." Final
Action 5. The nonspecific and unsupported reason of an alleged
"technological upgrade" runs afoul of the mandate that "rejections on
obviousness grounds cannot be sustained by mere conclusory statements;
instead, there must be some articulated reasoning with some rational
underpinning to support the legal conclusion of obviousness." KSR Int'! Co.
v. Teleflex, Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 418 (2007) (quoting In re Kahn, 441 F.3d
977, 988 (Fed. Cir. 2006)) (internal quotation and bracketed alteration
omitted). This lack of adequate support for the determination of
obviousness is also persuasive of error in the rejection of claim 1.
In view of the foregoing, the rejection of independent claim 1 is not
sustained. For the same or similar reasons, the rejection of the other
4
Appeal2014-005122
Application 11/553,888
independent claims - claims 9 and 17 - and of dependent claims 3-8, 11-
16, and 19-24 is not sustained.
DECISION
We REVERSE the Examiner's decision rejecting claims 1, 3-9, 11-
17, and 19-24.
REVERSED
5