Sheetal Agarwal et al.

Patent Trials and Appeals Board

Dec 14, 2020

2020003283 (P.T.A.B. Dec. 14, 2020)

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.
13/191,590 07/27/2011 Sheetal Agarwal IN920110124US1
(790.128)
4399
89885 7590 12/14/2020
FERENCE & ASSOCIATES LLC
409 BROAD STREET
PITTSBURGH, PA 15143
EXAMINER
MPAMUGO, CHINYERE
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
3621
MAIL DATE DELIVERY MODE
12/14/2020 PAPER
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.
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
____________

BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
____________

Ex parte SHEETAL AGARWAL and ARUN KUMAR
____________

Appeal 2020-003283
Application 13/191,590
Technology Center 3600
____________

Before KALYAN K. DESHPANDE, CHARLES J. BOUDREAU, and
SHARON FENICK, Administrative Patent Judges.

BOUDREAU, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 134(a), Appellant1 appeals from the
Examiner’s decision to reject claims 13–32.2 We have jurisdiction under
35 U.S.C. § 6(b)(1).
We AFFIRM.

1 We use the word “Appellant” to refer to “applicant” as defined in
37 C.F.R. § 1.42. Appellant identifies International Business Machines
Corporation as the real party in interest. Appeal Br. 3.
2 Claims 1–12 have been cancelled. Appeal Br. 24 (Claims App.)
Appeal 2020-003283
Application 13/191,590

2
CLAIMED SUBJECT MATTER
Appellant’s invention relates to “voice applications with a capability
for user-generated content.” Spec. ¶ 1. “These permit a user to phone into a
number and access voice application sites analogous to websites, yet
controlled, delivered and administered via audio and voice.” Id.
Claims 13 and 14 are independent. Claim 13, reproduced below, is
illustrative of the subject matter on appeal (emphasis added):
13. An apparatus comprising:
at least one processor; and
a non-transitory computer readable storage medium
having computer readable program code embodied therewith
and executable by the at least one processor, the computer
readable program code comprising:
computer readable program code that accepts voice input
of a user during user access to a spoken web application
comprising audio content arranged as a voice application site,
wherein the user access is performed via a telephone, the
spoken web application including a voice application platform
and a plurality of voice application web sites having audio
content, wherein the spoken web application runs on a
telecommunications infrastructure and is accessible using non-
Internet access points;
wherein the voice application platform provides
programmatic application program interfaces (APIs) for use
with a voice activated user interface to forward content
collection commands to one or more of the plurality of voice
application web sites;
computer readable program code that accepts user voice
input, via the voice activated user interface, to select content
in one of the plurality of voice application web sites for offline
delivery;
computer readable program code that stores the selected
content in a content wallet, wherein storing the selected
Appeal 2020-003283
Application 13/191,590

3
content comprises generating one or more spoken annotation
tags for the one of the plurality of voice application web sites
to be associated with the content corresponding to the user
selection and associating the one or more spoken annotation
tags with the content;
the content wallet being accessible both when the user
accesses the voice application site and after the user has
disconnected from the voice application site and wherein the
user can access one or more spoken annotation tags and the
associated content in the voice application site using the
content wallet;
wherein said storing comprises accumulating more than
one selected voice application site with respect to at least two
sessions of user access to the voice application platform;
computer readable program code that avails the content
wallet for delivery to the user subsequent to the storage of the
selected content; and
computer readable program code that provides a payment
gateway for charging the user for delivery of the content wallet,
wherein delivery of the content wallet comprises, when the user
does not have access to a computer and after the user has
provided payment through the payment gateway, creating a
physical storage device containing the content of the content
wallet and delivering the physical storage device to the user via
ground delivery.
Appeal Br. 24–25 (Claims App.).
Appeal 2020-003283
Application 13/191,590

4
REJECTIONS
The Examiner rejects claims 13–29 under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. § 103(a)
as being unpatentable over Kumar3 and Facemire.4 Final Act. 3–9.
The Examiner rejects claims 30 and 32 under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a) as being unpatentable over Kumar, Facemire, and Basir.5 Final
Act. 9–11.
The Examiner rejects claim 31 under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
being unpatentable over Kumar, Facemire, and Marcus.6 Final Act. 11–12.
OPINION
The Examiner finds that Kumar teaches “computer readable program
code that accepts user voice input, via the voice activated user interface, to
select content in one of the plurality of voice application web sites for offline
delivery,” as recited in independent claim 13. Final Act. 4 (citing Kumar
¶¶ 29, 56). Specifically, the Examiner cites Kumar’s disclosure of a
personalized “voice-site” including content such as a voice message for a
caller (Kumar ¶ 29) and use of an Interactive Voice Response (IVR) module
“to provide matrimonial/dating service[s] by connecting a potential match to
the IVR module and allowing voice messages to be exchanged on offline
mode” (id. ¶ 56). See Final Act. 4; Ans. 4.

3 Kumar et al., US 2008/0144783 A1 (pub. June 19, 2008).
4 Facemire et al., US 2010/0070845 A1 (pub. Mar. 18, 2010).
5 Basir et al., US 2009/0318119 A1 (pub. Dec. 24, 2009).
6 Marcus et al., US 2006/0167849 A1 (pub. July 27, 2006).
Appeal 2020-003283
Application 13/191,590

5
Appellant argues that “Kumar does not indicate, nor mention, that
content within any of the IVR modules or voice sites can be selected for
later delivery, particularly offline delivery.” Appeal Br. 20; Reply Br. 19.
According to Appellant, “Kumar only states that the user can interact with
the voice site as per a standard voice site and then the call is terminated,
routed to a voice mail box, or routed to a different IVR module.” Appeal
Br. 20 (citing Kumar ¶ 33); Reply Br. 19.
We are unpersuaded by Appellant’s argument. Appellant does not
address paragraph 56 of Kumar, which, as discussed above, discloses
“allowing voice messages to be exchanged on offline mode.” Kumar ¶ 56.
As such, we are not persuaded of error in the Examiner’s finding that
Kumar’s disclosure of an IVR module of a voice-site that allows voice
messages to be exchanged on offline mode (see id.) teaches or suggests a
“computer readable program code that accepts user voice input, via the voice
activated user interface, to select content in one of the plurality of voice
application web sites for offline delivery” as claimed. See Final Act. 4;
Ans. 4.
The Examiner further finds that a combination of Kumar and
Facemire teaches or suggests the following additional claim limitations of
independent claim 13:
computer readable program code that stores the selected
content in a content wallet, wherein storing the selected content
comprises generating one or more spoken annotation tags for
the one of the plurality of voice application web sites to be
associated with the content corresponding to the user selection
and associating the one or more spoken annotation tags with the
content;
the content wallet being accessible both when the user
accesses the voice application site and after the user has
Appeal 2020-003283
Application 13/191,590

6
disconnected from the voice application site and wherein the
user can access one or more spoken annotation tags and the
associated content in the voice application site using the content
wallet.
Final Act. 5–6 (citing Kumar ¶ 29; Facemire ¶¶ 32, 36). With respect to the
recited “content wallet,” the Examiner finds that “[a] content wallet is a
place where content is stored for later use, and the later use can be offline or
online” and cites Facemire’s disclosure of a data store that “stores content
such as profiles to be used at a later time by the user.” Ans. 4; see Facemire
¶¶ 32, 36. The Examiner determines that it would have been obvious to one
of ordinary skill in the art to “modify Kumar to store[] the selected content
in a content wallet” in view of Facemire’s disclosure of a data store. Appeal
Br. 6.
Appellant argues that “Facemire is specifically directed toward a Web
based system” and that, although
the ability to access Web site content while not connected to
the Web site is known and has been known, as evidenced by
Facemire . . . . the ability to add this feature to voice
application sites has been a problem, and simply incorporating
the known technology as found in Web applications has not
been previously successful.
Appeal Br. 21–22; Reply Br. 20–21.
Appellant’s argument is unpersuasive. Appellant provides no
evidence of either a long-felt but unsolved need to access voice-application
site content while disconnected from the voice application site or failure of
others to provide the feature of accessing content while disconnected in
voice applications. On this record, we agree with the Examiner that it would
have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify Kumar’s
voice-site to include Facemire’s access to site content while disconnected
Appeal 2020-003283
Application 13/191,590

7
(i.e., storing content in a content wallet) in order to “improve[] the content
distribution to the user.” Final Act. 6.
Appellant further argues that the Examiner has not explained why one
of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to combine Kumar
and Facemire and how the combination would have worked and resulted in
the claimed invention. Appeal Br. 18–19; Reply Br. 17–18. Appellant’s
argument is not persuasive of reversible error. The Examiner finds that
Kumar teaches an apparatus that provides access to personalized voice
application sites including content. Final Act. 3–5 (citing Kumar ¶¶ 25, 29,
61, Fig. 3). The Examiner further finds that Facemire teaches storing
content in a content wallet, associating annotations with the content, and that
the content is accessible via the content wallet when the user is disconnected
from the network. Id. at 5–6 (citing Facemire ¶¶ 32, 36); see Ans. 4. The
Examiner then concludes that it would have been obvious to one of ordinary
skill in the art to incorporate Facemire’s teachings of storing content in a
content wallet, associating annotations with the content, and providing
accessibility to the content via the content wallet when the user is
disconnected into Kumar’s voice application site in order to “improve[] the
content distribution to the user” and “provide personalized content to a user
through a voice application platform.” Final Act. 6. As such, the Examiner
provides articulated reasoning with some rational underpinning to support
the conclusion of obviousness, and Appellant has not shown why the
Examiner's analysis is incorrect. See KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S.
398, 418 (2007) (quoting In re Kahn, 441 F.3d 977, 988 (Fed. Cir. 2006)).
Appeal 2020-003283
Application 13/191,590

8
For the foregoing reasons, we sustain the Examiner’s rejection of
independent claims 13 and 14, as well as the Examiner’s rejections of
dependent claims 15–32 not separately argued,7 under 35 U.S.C. § 103.
CONCLUSION
The Examiner’s rejections of claims 13–32 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 are
affirmed.
DECISION SUMMARY
In summary:

TIME PERIOD FOR RESPONSE
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

7 Appellant indicates that, “[f]or the purposes of this Appeal, independent
claims 13 and 14 are argued together,” and that, “[u]nless a claim is
separately argued via listing in a grouping of claims, for the purposes of this
Appeal only, a claim may be considered to stand or fall with the claim from
which it depends.” Appeal Br. 17.
Claims
Rejected 35 U.S.C. §
References/
Basis Affirmed Reversed
13–29 103 Kumar, Facemire 13–29
30, 32 103 Kumar, Facemire,
Basir
30, 32
31 103 Kumar, Facemire,
Marcus
31
Overall
Outcome
13–32