Avaya Inc.

Patent Trials and Appeals Board

Nov 18, 2021

2020003691 (P.T.A.B. Nov. 18, 2021)

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.
14/585,376 12/30/2014 John H. Yoakum 4366-951 1366
48500 7590 11/18/2021
SHERIDAN ROSS P.C.
1560 BROADWAY, SUITE 1200
DENVER, CO 80202
EXAMINER
MERCADO VARGAS, ARIEL
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2176
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
11/18/2021 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):
cjacquet@sheridanross.com
edocket@sheridanross.com
pair_Avaya@firsttofile.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
____________

BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
____________

Ex parte JOHN H. YOAKUM and
TONY McCORMACK
____________

Appeal 2020-003691
Application 14/585,376
Technology Center 2100
____________

Before HUNG H. BUI, CATHERINE SHIANG, and
DAVID J. CUTITTA II, Administrative Patent Judges.

SHIANG, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL
Appellant1 appeals under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Examiner’s
rejection of claims 1–5, 7, 8, and 12–16, which are all the claims pending
and rejected in the application. Appeal Br. 1. We have jurisdiction under
35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We reverse.

1 We use “Appellant” to refer to “applicant” as defined in 37 C.F.R.
§ 1.42. Appellant identifies Avaya Inc., as the real party in interest. Appeal
Br. 2.

Appeal 2020-003691
Application 14/585,376

2
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Introduction
The invention relates to “contact center interactions via a user device
having a relatively small form factor and limited display size.” Spec. ¶ 1. In
particular, the Specification explains existing prior art problems as follows:
It is often necessary for an individual to contact an entity, such
as a company, to resolve problems the individual is encountering,
such as product issues, service issues, billing issues, and the like.
Many companies handle customer calls via a contact center
device, which requires a customer to listen to a contact center
menu of options and enter keystrokes or audio commands to
traverse the contact center menu. Unfortunately, conventional
contact center menus do not lend themselves to user devices
having a limited display capacity.

Id. ¶ 4.
To solve the existing problems discussed above, the invention
provides an “interactive contact center menu traversal via text stream
interaction”:
The embodiments relate to interactive contact center menu
traversal via text stream interaction. In one embodiment, a user
device establishes an interactive session with a server device.
The user device receives, from the server device, a first text
stream comprising a first contact center prompt. The user device
scrolls a plurality of text components of the first text stream on a
display over a first text stream presentation period of time, with
text components presented earlier in time being replaced on the
display with subsequent text components. The user device
receives, from a user, a first user input in response to the first text
stream, and communicates the first user input to the server
device.

Id. ¶ 5. Independent claim 1 is exemplary with disputed limitations
emphasized:
Appeal 2020-003691
Application 14/585,376

3
1. A method comprising:
establishing, by a user device, an interactive session with
a server device;
receiving, by the user device from the server device, a
first text stream comprising a first contact center prompt,
wherein the first contact center prompt is associated with a
prompt menu identifier (ID) that identifies an associated
predetermined prompt menu;
scrolling a plurality of text components of the first text
stream on a display over a first text stream presentation period
of time, text components presented earlier in time being
replaced on the display with subsequent text components;
receiving, from a user, a first user input in response to the
first text stream and representing a user selection of a response
to the first contact center prompt, the response selected from a
plurality of responses comprising at least an accept response
and a reject response related to the first contact center prompt,
wherein receiving the first user input comprises analyzing an
eye of the user while concurrently scrolling the text components
on the display and detecting, based on analyzing the eye of the
user, the first user input; and
communicating the first user input to the server device.
Appeal Br. 9 (Claims App.).
References and Rejection2
Claims
Rejected
35 U.S.C. § References
1–5, 7, 8, 12–
16
103 Rotsztein (US 8,340,255 B2; published Dec. 25,
2012), Goldstein (US 2003/0038754 A1; published
Feb. 27, 2003), Wu (US 2014/0101263 A1;
published Apr. 10, 2014), and Freudenthaler (US
2015/0019994 A1; published Jan. 15, 2015)

2 Throughout this opinion, we refer to the (1) Final Office Action dated June
21, 2019 (“Final Act.”); (2) Appeal Brief dated Nov. 20, 2019 (“Appeal
Br.”); (3) Examiner’s Answer dated Feb. 14, 2020 (“Ans.”); and (4) Reply
Brief dated Apr. 14, 2020 (“Reply Br.”).
Appeal 2020-003691
Application 14/585,376

4
ANALYSIS
We have reviewed the Examiner’s rejection in light of Appellant’s
contentions and the evidence of record. We concur with Appellant’s
contentions that the Examiner erred in finding the cited portions of Rotsztein
teach “receiving, by the user device from the server device, a first text
stream comprising a first contact center prompt, wherein the first contact
center prompt is associated with a prompt menu identifier (ID) that identifies
an associated predetermined prompt menu,” as recited in independent
claim 1 (emphasis added). See Appeal Br. 4–5; Reply Br. 2.
The Examiner cites excerpts from Rotsztein’s columns 4–6 for
teaching the italicized limitation and finds:
. . . Rotsztein teaches a method that can customize the menu
presentation to the user based on the demographic, thus by using
demographics and selecting the corresponding controls that can
be presented to the user Rotsztein teaches or suggest “. . . a
prompt menu identifier (ID) that identifies an associated
predetermined prompt menu” because the controls being
presented to the user are being determined based on the user's
demographics. Specifically different controls may be presented
to the user based on different demographics, such as when
targeting different groups of impaired and disabled population,
language of the displayed content and so on.

The examiner noted that the menu of Rotsztein does not
provide the user with questions and based on the response
another question is presented, however, such features are not
presented in the claim. The claim only require the use of a
“prompt menu identifier (ID) and Rotsztein is using the
demographic data in order to determine the corresponding menu
to the user.[”]
Ans. 5–6 (emphasis omitted); see also Final Act. 4.
Appeal 2020-003691
Application 14/585,376

5
We disagree with the Examiner. Starting with claim interpretation,
because the Specification does not specifically define the italicized
limitation, we interpret that limitation according to its ordinary and
customary meaning. See Phillips v. AWH Corp., 415 F.3d 1303, 1313 (Fed.
Cir. 2005) (en banc) (“We have frequently stated that the words of a claim
‘are generally given their ordinary and customary meaning’”; “the ordinary
and customary meaning of a claim term is the meaning that the term would
have to a person of ordinary skill in the art in question at the time of the
invention, i.e., as of the effective filing date of the patent application”). In
some cases, as here, “the ordinary meaning of claim language as understood
by a person of skill in the art may be readily apparent even to lay judges, and
claim construction in such cases involves little more than the application of
the widely accepted meaning of commonly understood words.” Id. at 1314.
The disputed term “prompt menu identifier (ID) that identifies an associated
predetermined prompt menu” is self-explanatory and is commonly
understood as an identifier (ID) for a prompt menu, and the ID identifies an
associated predetermined prompt menu. That interpretation is consistent
with the Specification, which illustrates the italicized limitation in Figure 3
reproduced below:
Appeal 2020-003691
Application 14/585,376

6

Spec. Fig. 3.
Figure 3, reproduced above, “is a block diagram of a predetermined
prompt menu according to one embodiment.” Spec. ¶ 14. Consistent with
the above interpretation, the Specification describes the italicized limitation
in connection with Figure 3 as follows:
The predetermined prompt menu 48 may have an associated
prompt menu identifier (ID) 58 that uniquely identifies the
predetermined prompt menu 48 among the plurality of
Appeal 2020-003691
Application 14/585,376

7
predetermined prompt menus 48. In one embodiment, the ACCD
32 may provide the prompt menu identifier 58 to the user device
12 in conjunction with the text streams 56. The user device 12
may then communicate the prompt menu ID 58 back to the
ACCD 32 with a user response. The ACCD 32 may utilize the
prompt menu ID 58 to determine the appropriate prompt menu
48 that is being processed for the user 16.
Id. ¶ 42 (emphasis added).
Turning to the obviousness rejection, as discussed above, the
Examiner cites excerpts from Rotsztein for teaching the italicized limitation.
We have reviewed the Rotsztein portions cited by the Examiner, and the
cited Rotsztein portions do not teach or suggest “a prompt menu identifier
(ID) that identifies an associated predetermined prompt menu,” as required
by claim 1. In particular, the Examiner finds “by using demographics and
selecting the corresponding controls that can be presented to the user
Rotsztein teaches or suggest[s]” the italicized limitation (Ans. 5). That
finding is unsubstantiated, as the Examiner has not persuasively explained
why “using demographics and selecting the corresponding controls that can
be presented to the user” (Ans. 5) teaches “an associated predetermined
prompt menu,” let alone “a prompt menu identifier (ID) that identifies an
associated predetermined prompt menu.” Consistent with our assessment,
the cited Rotsztein portions do not describe the demographic data as an
identifier that “identifies an associated predetermined prompt menu”:
. . . the IDR system can be utilized to collect users' selections
made during calls to call centers. Such information can be
processed to produce demographic data about the user.
Demographic data can be gathered from such as databases
maintained by service providers.
Based on the demographic data targeted commercial
content (e.g., ads) can be sent to the users. The invention may
Appeal 2020-003691
Application 14/585,376

8
further track of the user’s active interest in the displayed
commercial content. In addition, based on the demographic data
the type and design of controls is determined. For example,
different controls could be used when targeting different groups
of impaired and disabled population, language of the displayed
content, and so on.
Rotsztein 6:51–64 (emphases added).
As a result, we agree with Appellant that the Examiner has not shown
Rotsztein teaches “receiving, by the user device from the server device, a
first text stream comprising a first contact center prompt, wherein the first
contact center prompt is associated with a prompt menu identifier (ID) that
identifies an associated predetermined prompt menu,” as required by
independent claim 1 (emphasis added). See Appeal Br. 4–5; Reply Br. 2.
Because the Examiner fails to provide sufficient evidence or
explanation to support the rejection, we are constrained by the record to
reverse the Examiner’s obviousness rejection of independent claim 1.
Independent claim 12 also recites the italicized limitation. See Claim
12. The Examiner applies the same findings (discussed above) to both
claims 1 and 12. See Final Act. 21. Therefore, for the same reasons
discussed above with respect to claim 1, we reverse the Examiner’s
obviousness rejection of independent claim 12, and corresponding dependent
claims 2–5, 7, 8, and 13–16.
We note Appellant raises additional arguments. Because the
identified issue is dispositive of the appeal, we do not address the additional
arguments. See, e.g., Beloit Corp. v. Valmet Oy, 742 F.2d 1421, 1423
(Fed. Cir. 1984) (an administrative agency’s “judicious use of a single
dispositive issue approach . . . can . . . save . . . unnecessary cost and effort”).

Appeal 2020-003691
Application 14/585,376

9
CONCLUSION
We reverse the Examiner’s obviousness decision rejecting claims 1–5,
7, 8, and 12–16 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 based on combined teachings of
Rotsztein, Goldstein, Wu, and Freudenthaler.

DECISION SUMMARY
In summary:

Claims
Rejected
35 U.S.C.
§
References Affirmed Reversed
1–5, 7, 8,
12–16
103 Rotsztein,
Goldstein, Wu,
Freudenthaler
1–5, 7, 8,
12–16

REVERSED