XSell Technologies, Inc.Download PDFPatent Trials and Appeals BoardApr 30, 20212021003050 (P.T.A.B. Apr. 30, 2021) Copy Citation 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. 15/090,004 04/04/2016 MARK STOEHR C0567/40869A 3191 127269 7590 04/30/2021 McCracken & Gillen LLC 1315 West 22nd Street, Suite 225 Oak Brook, IL 60523 EXAMINER MESA, JOEL ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 2447 NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE 04/30/2021 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): docket@mfgip.com PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07) UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE ____________________ BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD ____________________ Ex parte MARK STOEHR, JOHN SORRENTINO, CHANDLER GREGG, and MATTHEW B. COUGHLIN ____________________ Appeal 2021-003050 Application 15/090,004 Technology Center 2400 ____________________ Before ROBERT E. NAPPI, JOHNNY A. KUMAR, and CATHERINE SHIANG, Administrative Patent Judges. NAPPI, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL Appellant1 appeals under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Examiner’s final rejection of claims 1 through 19 and 21. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). We REVERSE. 1 We use the word Appellant to refer to “applicant” as defined in 37 C.F.R. § 1.42(a). According to Appellant, XSELL Technologies, Inc. is the real party-in-interest. Appeal Br. 2. Appeal 2021-003050 Application 15/090,004 2 INVENTION The invention is directed to a computer-implemented method and apparatus for placing a request for an Internet chat session between a visitor and a chat persona. Abstract. Claim 1 is illustrative of the invention and is reproduced below. 1. A computer-implemented method of undertaking an Internet chat session, comprising the steps of: instructing a client device to display information corresponding to a plurality of chat personas, request selection of one of the chat personas, and transmit information regarding the selection; in response to receiving information regarding the selection, selecting at least one chat persona from the plurality of chat personas; receiving using a chat system server a chat request to begin a chat session; instructing using the chat system server an associate device operable by an associate to invoke an instant messaging client adapted to enable communications between the associate device and the client device; and using the chat system server to instruct the associate device to display a plurality of response recommendations developed by the chat system server, wherein the plurality of response recommendations is developed iteratively in response to messages received from the client device, in accordance with the at least one chat persona, and using machine learning based on prior chat logs. EXAMINER’S REJECTION2 The Examiner has rejected claims 1 through 19 and 21 under 2 Throughout this Decision we refer to the Appeal Brief filed October 9, 2020 (“Appeal Br.”); Reply Brief, filed April 5, 2021 (Reply Br.); Final Office Action mailed May 15, 2020 (“Final Act.”); and the Examiner’s Answer mailed February 5, 2021 (“Ans.”). Appeal 2021-003050 Application 15/090,004 3 35 U.S.C. § 103 as unpatentable over Finn (US 2009/0271205 A1; Oct.25, 2009), and Cheung (US 2016/0225372 A1; Aug. 4, 2016). Final Act. 5–12. ANALYSIS We have reviewed Appellant’s arguments in the Briefs, the Examiner’s rejections, and the Examiner’s response to Appellant’s arguments. Appellant’s arguments have persuaded us of error in the Examiner’s rejection of claims 1 through 19 and 21. Appellant presents several arguments directed to the Examiner’s rejection of the independent claims. Appeal Br. 5–8, Reply Br. 2–3. The dispositive issue presented by these arguments is did the Examiner err in finding the combination of Finn and Cheung teaches the chat system instructing the associate device to display a plurality of response recommendations developed by the chat system server. Appeal Br. 5 The Examiner finds that Finn teaches a chat system where the customer service representative receives identification and transcripts to personalize the chat, and enhance the communication, which teaches the disputed limitation. Final Act. 6–7 (citing Finn ¶¶ 29, 31, 43, 44, 50). Further, in response to Appellant’s arguments the Examiner states: The claim language is extremely vague as to what a response recommendations is therefore the reference language directed to an avatar appearance or even a dialect or accent etc. fall within the broadest reasonable interpretation. These sections of the reference further teach that these can be chosen from a list of options presented by the server and that those options can be suggested based on historical behavior, user profile ect.(sic). Ans. 4 (citing Finn ¶¶ 43–44). We have reviewed the teachings of Finn cited by the Examiner and Appeal 2021-003050 Application 15/090,004 4 Appellant’s Specification. We disagree with the Examiner’s claim interpretation and findings concerning Finn teaching the claimed feature of providing recommendations. Claim 1 recites “using the chat system server to instruct the associate device to display a plurality of response recommendations developed by the chat system server.” Each of independent claims 11, 16, and 21 also recites limitations directed to the associate device being provided with plural response recommendations. Appellant’s Specification discusses plural types of information that can be provided to an associate device through an augmented dashboard and includes product recommendations and response recommendations (e.g., recommendations of information to be presented in the chat). Spec. ¶ 39. Appellant’s Specification discusses a personalization engine that acts on the information provided in the dashboard (including response recommendation) and takes into account that language and choice of vocabulary (dialect) based upon the persona used as part of the chat (e.g., format of content). Spec. ¶¶ 12, 38, 42 & Fig. 2. Thus, Appellant’s Specification does not discuss the “response recommendations” as being the avatar appearance or even a dialect or accent but rather discusses such parameters as being part of a personalization engine. While we concur with the Examiner that the term “response recommendation” is a broad term and would encompass anything related to recommendations of information to be presented in the chat, we do not consider it to be so broad as to encompass appearance and dialect as the Examiner concludes. Thus, we conclude the Examiner’s interpretation to be unreasonable as it is not consistent with Appellant’s Specification. Further, we have reviewed the portions of Finn, cited by the Examiner as teaching this limitation, and do not find that Finn teaches providing chat response Appeal 2021-003050 Application 15/090,004 5 recommendations (information) to the associate device, as claimed in the independent claims. Accordingly, we do not sustain the Examiner’s obviousness rejection of claims 1 through 19 and 21 CONCLUSION We reverse the Examiner’s rejections of claims 1 through 19 and 21. Claim(s) Rejected 35 U.S.C. § Reference(s)/Basis Affirmed Reversed 1–19, 21 103 Finn, Cheung 1–19, 21 REVERSED Copy with citationCopy as parenthetical citation