Ex Parte Tegreene et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Apr 28, 2017

13385781 (P.T.A.B. Apr. 28, 2017)

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.
13/385,781 03/06/2012 Clarence T. Tegreene IV 11-2-6 3574
80118 7590 05/02/2017
Constellation Law Group, PLLC
P.O. Box 580
Tracyton, WA 98393
EXAMINER
MEHEDI, MORSHED
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2438
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
05/02/2017 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):
admin@constellationlaw.com
T yler @ constellationlaw. com
ISFDocketInbox@intven.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte CLARENCE T. TEGREENE, ROYCE A. LEVIEN,
RICHARD T. LORD, ROBERT W. LORD,
and
MARK A. MALAMUD
Appeal 2015-006466
Application 13/385,781
Technology Center 2400
Before CARLA M. KRIVAK, HUNG H. BUI, and
JEFFREY A. STEPHENS, Administrative Patent Judges.
STEPHENS, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Appellants1 seek our review under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the
Examiner’s Final Rejection of claims 1—24, which are all the claims pending
in the application. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We reverse.
1 The real party in interest is identified as Elwha, LLC, which is identified
as wholly owned by Intellectual Ventures Management, LLC. App. Br. 4.
Appeal 2015-006466
Application 13/385,781
Claimed Subject Matter
The claimed invention relates to systems, methods, and computer-
readable storage mediums for generating a deceptive indicia profile for a
participant based on communications interactions, and providing a
notification associated with the deceptive indicia profile to the participant.
Spec. Title, Abstract.
Claims 1, 23, and 24 are independent. Claim 1, reproduced below, is
exemplary of the subject matter on appeal.
1. A system comprising:
means for detecting one or more indicia of deception
associated with one or more signals associated with
communication content provided by a participant in a first
communications interaction;
means for detecting one or more indicia of deception
associated with one or more signals associated with
communications content provided by the participant in a second
communications interaction;
means for generating a deceptive indicia profile for the
participant according to indicia of deception detected in the
communications content provided by the participant in the first
communications interaction and indicia of deception detected in
the communications content provided by the participant in the
second communications interaction; and
means for providing a notification associated with the
deceptive indicia profile for the participant to the participant.
2
Appeal 2015-006466
Application 13/385,781
Examiner’s Rejections & References2
(1) Claims 1, 11—18, and 21—24 stand rejected under
35 U.S.C. § 102(b) as anticipated by Toms (US 2005/0185779 Al; Aug. 25,
2005). Final Act. 27-36.
(2) Claims 1, 11—18, and 21—24 stand rejected under
35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as obvious over Toms. Final Act. 27—36.
(3) Claims 2—\ stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as obvious
over Toms and Zaitsev (US 2010/0132038 Al; May 27, 2010). Final Act.
36-38.
(4) Claims 5—7, 19, and 20 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a)
as obvious over Toms and Nonaka et al. (US 2009/0254988 Al; Oct. 8,
2009) (“Nonaka”). Final Act. 38-41.
(5) Claims 8 and 9 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
obvious over Toms and Scanlon (US 5,853,005; Dec. 29, 1998). Final Act.
41—43.
(6) Claim 10 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as obvious
over Toms and Comparetti (US 2007/0214504 Al; Sep. 13, 2007). Final
Act. 43.
ANALYSIS
We have reviewed the Examiner’s rejections in light of Appellants’
arguments that the Examiner erred (App. Br. 11—40; Reply Br. 2—17). On
2 A non-statutory double patenting rejection of claims 1—24 over Application
No. 13/374,521 (Final Act. 5—26) is moot in view of the abandonment of this
application. In particular, a Notice of Abandonment of Application No.
13/374,521 was mailed on June 16, 2016.
3
Appeal 2015-006466
Application 13/385,781
the record before us, we concur with Appellants’ contention (App. Br. 15—
18; Reply Br. 2—9) that the Examiner has not pointed to sufficient evidence
that Toms teaches or suggests “providing a notification associated with the
deceptive indicia profile for the participant to the participant,” as recited in
claim 1.
The Examiner finds Toms’ user/caller is a participant in
communications interactions as claimed because the user makes phone calls
from a telephone number (A-number). Ans. 25—26 (citing Toms 98—99,
107); Final Act. 28 (citing Toms 1123). The Examiner further finds Toms’
profile of user usage—which includes voice prints to distinguish a fraudster
from a valid caller from the A-number—teaches a voice-based deceptive
indicia profile for the participant, as claimed. Ans. 24—25 (citing Toms
H 24, 27, 101, 122); Final Act. 27—28. The Examiner recognizes Toms
provides a fraud alert signal/notification to a fraud investigator or system
operator, but “Toms does not explicitly disclose a notification to the
participant.” Final Act. 28 (citing Toms 114, 131) (emphasis added); see
also Ans. 26—27 (citing Toms 1139). The Examiner then reasons the skilled
artisan would provide Toms’ notification to the participant “using the
known technique of [] sending alert to participant (valid user or fraudster)
[which] would have predictably resulted in terminating or suspending
services.” Ans. 27, 32; see also Final Act. 28.
Appellants contend Toms “’generated fraud alert prompts to a team of
fraud investigators and alert to an operator of the system’ cannot reasonably
be held to render obvious prompts to any and all other entities (e.g. the
‘fraudster’ of Toms).” Reply Br. 7. Thus, Appellants argue, Toms does not
teach or suggest providing a notification associated with the deceptive
4
Appeal 2015-006466
Application 13/385,781
indicia profile for the participant to the participant, as claimed. We agree
with Appellants that Toms does not disclose or suggest providing a
notification to a participant for whom a deceptive indicia profile was
generated. Reply Br. 6; App. Br. 16, 18. Rather, Toms is silent as to any
notification to the participant in the communication, and merely discloses
notifications “to alert an operator of the system that a fraudulent transaction
is taking or has taken place” and to “prompt a team of fraud investigators to
intervene, to determine whether suspension or termination of the services
associated with the A-number identifier is appropriate.” See Toms 1139.
The Examiner has also not identified evidence to show that providing
a notification to a participant—for whom a deceptive indicia profile was
generated—is well known. App. Br. 16—17. Rather, the Examiner refers to
“the known technique of [] sending alert to participant (valid user or
fraudster)” (Ans. 27, 32) with “no evidence proving the obviousness of
providing any notification to the ‘fraudster’” or valid user of Toms (Reply
Br. 9 (emphasis removed)). Additionally, we agree with Appellants the
Examiner’s rationale to modify or supplement Toms (for a predictable result
of terminating or suspending services, (Ans. 27; Final Act. 28)) is
insufficient to explain why the skilled artisan would provide Toms’
notification to the participant/caller, as opposed to the system
operator/fraud investigator that determine whether suspension or
termination is appropriate. Reply Br. 4; App. Br. 16; see also Toms 1139.
The Examiner also has not shown that the additional teachings of
Zaitsev, Nonaka, Scanlon, and Comparetti make up for the above-noted
deficiencies of Toms. As the Examiner has not identified sufficient
evidence to support the Examiner’s finding that the references teach or
5
Appeal 2015-006466
Application 13/385,781
suggest the claimed “providing a notification associated with the deceptive
indicia profile for the participant to the participant,” we do not sustain the
Examiner’s § 102(b) and § 103(a) rejections of independent claim 1 over
Toms. For the same reasons, we do not sustain the Examiner’s § 102(b) and
§ 103(a) rejections of independent claims 23 and 24, which recite the
aforementioned “notification” limitation disputed by Appellants. We
similarly do not sustain the rejections of dependent claims 2—22. Because
the above-discussed issue is dispositive as to the anticipation and
obviousness rejections of all claims on appeal, we do not reach additional
issues raised by Appellants’ arguments as to the rejections of claims 1, 13,
and 14.
DECISION
The Examiner’s decision rejecting claims 1—24 is reversed.
REVERSED
6