Ex Parte Tran

Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences

Aug 29, 2012

11230280 (B.P.A.I. Aug. 29, 2012)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
____________

BEFORE THE BOARD OF PATENT APPEALS
AND INTERFERENCES
____________

Ex parte BAO Q. TRAN

Appeal 2010-001652
Application 11/230,280
Technology Center 2800
____________

Before JAMES R. HUGHES, GREGORY J. GONSALVES, and
ANDREW J. DILLON, Administrative Patent Judges.

DILLON, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL
Appellant appeals under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Examiner’s
rejection of claims 1-20. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We affirm.

STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Appellant’s invention is directed to a system and method for remote
facility management utilizing a remote receptionist at a remote location
Appeal 2010-001652
Application 11/230,280
2
which includes a visitor data entry computer, including a camera, a display,
and a speaker. See Disclosure, p. 28, Abstract.

Claim 1 is illustrative, with key disputed limitations emphasized:
1. A computer system to provide reception services for a
visitor at a visited facility, comprising:

a call center having a remote receptionist;

a remote camera, a remote audio device and a remote
display at the remote facility to provide audio-visual feedback
to the remote receptionist;

a processor; a camera, an audio device and a display coupled
to the processor at the visited facility to communicate and
provide audio-visual communication between the remote
receptionist and the visitor.

The Examiner relies on the following as evidence of unpatentability:
Olenick US 2004/0099731 A1 May 27, 2004
Taha US 2006/0020433 A1 Jan. 26, 2006
(Filed Jul. 21, 2004)

THE REJECTIONS
1. The Examiner rejected claims 1-10, 13-17, and 20 under 35 U.S.C.
§102(e) as anticipated by Olenick. Ans. 3-7.1

1 Throughout this opinion, we refer to the Appeal Brief filed May 7, 2009;
the Examiner’s Answer mailed September 1, 2009; and the Reply Brief filed
November 18, 2009.
Appeal 2010-001652
Application 11/230,280
3
2. The Examiner rejected claims 11, 12, 18 and 19 under 35 U.S.C.
§103(a) as unpatentable over Olenick and Taha. Ans. 8-9.

ISSUES
Based upon our review of the record, the arguments proffered by
Appellant and the findings of the Examiner, we find the following issues to
be dispositive of the claims on appeal:
1. Under §102, has the Examiner erred in rejecting claim 1 by finding
that Olenick discloses a call center, a remote camera, a remote
audio device, and a remote display utilized to provide audio-visual
feedback in each direction between a visitor and a remote
receptionist?
2. Under §102, has the Examiner erred in rejecting claim 2 by finding
that Olenick discloses a touch screen display?
3. Under §102, has the Examiner erred in rejecting claim 5 by finding
that Olenick discloses a printer that prints computer readable code?
4. Under §102, has the Examiner erred in rejecting claim 6 by finding
that Olenick discloses that the camera captures a bar code on a
visitor badge?
5. Under §102, has the Examiner erred in rejecting claim 7 by finding
that Olenick discloses scanning a bar code at the end of a visit?
6. Under §103, has the Examiner erred in rejecting claim 11, 12, 18,
and 19 by finding that Olenick and Taha, collectively, teach or
suggest the use of a satellite, fiber-optic or cellular communication
system for transmitting audio and video data?
Appeal 2010-001652
Application 11/230,280
4
ANALYSIS
Appellant argues that Olenick discloses “a remote attendant or
receptionist” and thus fails to show the claimed “call center” set forth in
Appellant’s independent claims. App. Br. 4-5, Reply Br. 1-2.
Further, Appellant argues that Olenick fails to disclose receptionist
feedback in the form of a remote camera, a remote audio device and a
remote display, and visitor feedback in the form of a camera, an audio
device and a display at the visited facility. App. Br. 5, Reply Br. 2.
The Examiner finds that Olenick discloses a remote receptionist at a
call center wherein each visited facility includes a self-service kiosk which
includes a client computer connected to a camera, a printer, a user
information input enabling module, voice recognition software, and two-way
audio/video communication equipment, citing ¶ [0032]. Ans. 9-10.
We find Appellant’s Specification refers to “remote call center 18”
(Spec., p. 7, l. 7, et seq.); however, Appellant’s drawings merely illustrate
“Remote Receptionist 18” within Figure 1A. Consequently, we do not find
the Examiner’s reading of the phrase “call center having a remote
receptionist” (claim 1) as anticipated by Olenick’s “remote attendant” to be
an unreasonably broad interpretation of that phrase.
Further, we find the cited description of the “self-service kiosk”
within Olenick at ¶ [0032], which is relied upon by the Examiner, contains a
camera, a printer, a user input device and audio/visual equipment and
communication between the visitor and the remote attendant is described at
¶[0018]. Consequently, we are not persuaded by Appellant’s arguments
with respect to independent claims 1, 10 and 13.
Appellant argues, with respect to claim 2, that Olenick fails to
disclose the use of a touch screen display. App. Br. 5, Reply Br. 2.
Appeal 2010-001652
Application 11/230,280
5
The Examiner finds that Olenick discloses, at ¶ [0040], that the visitor
may enter responses at the self-service kiosk using “a conventional
keyboard, touch screen, light pen, voice recognition software or other input
mechanism.” (Emphasis added).
We are therefore, unconvinced by Appellant’s argument with respect
to claim 2.
Appellant argues regarding claim 5 that Olenick fails to disclose a
printer that prints computer readable code. App. Br. 5, Reply Br. 2.
The Examiner finds that Figure 6 of Olenick depicts a representation
of a preview of a visitor pass prepared utilizing the Olenick system. Present
within Figure 6 is a bar code which is computer readable.
As above, such clear evidence constrains us to agree with the
Examiner, with regard to claim 5.
The Appellant argues that Olenick fails to disclose a camera which
captures a bar code on a visitor badge, as set forth in claim 6, or at the end of
a visit, as set forth in claim 7. App. Br. 5, Reply Br. 2.
The Examiner finds that Olenick discloses that the bar codes on the
visitor badges printed by the Olenick system are scanned. Ans. 11, see also
Olenick, Figure 3B.
Finally, Appellant argues that the cited combination of Olenick and
Taha fails to teach or suggest that the remote location is coupled to the
receptionist via a satellite link or a fiber-optic link as set forth in claims 11,
12, 18, and 19. App. Br. 6-7, Reply Br. 3-4.
The Examiner finds that Taha discloses a variety of communication
links that may be utilized between two devices for use in audio/video
conferencing, citing ¶[0040] which states: “The present invention may be
employed in any type of network, be it wireless, wire, or a mix of wire
Appeal 2010-001652
Application 11/230,280
6
media and wireless components. That is, a network may use both wire
media, such as coaxial cable, and wireless devices, such as satellites, or
cellular antennas.” See Ans. 11-12.
We find the Examiner’s arguments convincing.

CONCLUSION
The Examiner did not err in rejecting claims 1-10, 13-17 and 20 under
§102 and claims 11, 12, 18, and 19 under §103.

ORDER
The Examiner’s decision rejecting claims 1-20 is affirmed.
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

peb