Avaya Inc.

Patent Trials and Appeals Board

Apr 1, 2022

2020006230 (P.T.A.B. Apr. 1, 2022)

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. 13/919,317 06/17/2013 Shane PARSONS 648.0257 5506 93379 7590 04/01/2022 Setter Roche LLP 1860 Blake Street Suite 100 Denver, CO 80202 EXAMINER HO, RUAY L ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 2175 NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE 04/01/2022 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): pair_avaya@firsttofile.com sarah@setterroche.com uspto@setterroche.com PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07) UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE ________________ BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD ________________ Ex parte SHANE PARSONS and SCOTT SEWELL ________________ Appeal 2020-006230 Application 13/919,317 Technology Center 2100 ________________ Before CARL W. WHITEHEAD JR., JASON V. MORGAN, and LARRY J. HUME, Administrative Patent Judges. MORGAN, 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 1, 4-10, 12-14, and 16-20. Claims 2, 3, 11, and 15 are canceled. Appeal Br. 10, 12, 14 (Claims App.). This appeal is related to a prior appeal (Appeal No. 2018-004891, decided February 4, 2019) 1 “Appellant” refers 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 2020-006230 Application 13/919,317 2 in the prosecution of this application.2 We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). We affirm. SUMMARY OF THE DISCLOSURE Appellant’s claimed subject matter relates to “providing configurable real-time information associated with one or more participants in [a] conference.” Spec. ¶ 1. REFERENCES The Examiner relies on the following references as evidence (only the first named inventor of each reference is listed): Name Reference Date Lee US 2011/0093273 A1 Apr. 21, 2011 Anderson US 2012/0182384 A1 July 19, 2012 Lord US 2013/0144603 A1 June 6, 2013 Yerli US 2013/0159883 A1 June 20, 2013 Sankar US 2014/0074471 A1 Mar. 13, 2014 2 Appellant submits “[t]here are no prior or pending related appeals or interferences.” Appeal Br. 2. Appellant and Appellant’s counsel are reminded of the duty to identify all other prior and pending appeals, interferences, trials before the Board, or judicial proceedings (collectively, “related cases”) which satisfy all of the following conditions: involve an application or patent owned by the appellant or assignee, are known to appellant, the appellant’s legal representative, or assignee, and may be related to, directly affect or be directly affected by or have a bearing on the Board’s decision in the pending appeal. 37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(1)(ii). Appeal 2020-006230 Application 13/919,317 3 REJECTIONS The Examiner rejects claims 1, 4-10, 12-14, and 16-20 as follows: Claims Rejected 35 U.S.C. § Reference(s)/Basis Citation 1, 4-7, 9, 14-18, 20 103 Anderson, Sankar, Lee Final Act. 3-7 8, 19 103 Anderson, Sankar, Lee, Lord Final Act. 7-8 10, 12, 13 103 Anderson, Sankar, Lee, Yerli Final Act. 8-10 ANALYSIS Claims 1, 5, 6, 9, 10, 13, 14, 17, and 20 Claim 1, which is representative with respect to itself and claims 5, 6, 9, 14, 17, and 20, is reproduced below (disputed limitations emphasized and bracketing added). 1. A computing device for providing a graphical user interface for a conference, the computing device comprising: a receiver, the receiver configured to receive participant data, the participant data including: a list of participants in the conference; and at least one subset of participant data associated with each participant in the list of participants; a processor, the processor configured to use the at least one subset of participant data to, in real-time during the conference, [1] determine two or more active-speaker participants from the participants in the conference, wherein the two or more active- speaker participants comprise a current active speaker in the conference and at least one participant that was previously an active speaker in the conference; a display, the display configured to, in real-time during the conference: Appeal 2020-006230 Application 13/919,317 4 display, in a first section of the graphical user interface, the list of participants; and display, in a second section of the graphical user interface different from the first section, a list of the two or more active-speaker participants, wherein: the list of participants is displayed in the first section at the same time as the list of the two or more active-speaker participants is displayed in the second section. Appeal Br. 10 (Claims App.). In rejecting claim 1 as obvious, the Examiner finds that Sankar’s identification of speakers at a meeting teaches or suggests [1] determining “two or more active-speaker participants from the participants in the conference, wherein the two or more active-speaker participants comprise a current active speaker in the conference and at least one participant that was previously an active speaker in the conference.” Final Act. 4 (citing Sankar ¶¶ 29-30); Ans. 10 (further citing Sankar Fig. 3). Appellant contends the Examiner errs because recitation [1] refers to a current active speaker in a conference and at least one participant that was previously an active speaker in the same conference. Appeal Br. 4; Reply Br. 2. Appellant argues the “previous meetings disclosed in Sankar cannot have a current active speaker that is currently speaking because previous meetings . . . are not current meetings in which there can be a current active speaker.” Appeal Br. 4 (emphasis added). Appellant further argues “if Sankar was to disclose a current active speaker in a meeting, that meeting would have to be a currently occurring meeting and would be a different meeting than one of the previous meetings”; therefore, “[t]he speakers at previous meetings [in Sankar] are not analogous to the at least one Appeal 2020-006230 Application 13/919,317 5 participant that was previously an active speaker in the conference required by” recitation [1]. Id. Appellant’s arguments are not persuasive of Examiner error. The two or more active-speaker participants of recitation [1] “comprise a current active speaker in the conference and at least one participant that as previously an active speaker in the conference” (emphasis added). Thus, the two or more active-speaker participants can include other participants as well, such as participants who are likely to become active speakers. Such a list of active-speaker participants would fall within the scope of the disputed recitation as soon as one active speaker becomes a previously active speaker because another speaker takes over as the current active speaker. Sankar specifically creates a list of potential speakers, which is used to improve speaker recognition accuracy and speed. Sankar ¶ 30 (cited in Final Act. 4). It would have been obvious that two or more speakers from the list of potential speakers could speak and, having done so, would continue to be likely speakers. Thus, Sankar’s list of potential speakers teaches or suggests the determined two or more active-speaker participants of recitation [1]. Therefore, we agree with the Examiner that Sankar, in combination with the other Anderson and Lee, teaches or suggests recitation [1]. Accordingly, we sustain the Examiner’s 35 U.S.C. § 103 rejection of claim 1, and claims 5, 6, 9, 14, 17, and 20, which Appellant does not argue separately. We also sustain the Examiner’s 35 U.S.C. § 103 rejection of claims 10 and 13, which Appellant argues are patentable for similar reasons. Appeal Br. 7. Appeal 2020-006230 Application 13/919,317 6 Claims 4, 12, and 16 Claim 4, which is representative with respect to itself and claim 16, is reproduced below (disputed limitations emphasized and bracketing added). 4. The computing device of claim 1, [2] wherein the at least one subset of participant data includes at least one flag associated with a respective participant, the at least one flag indicating that the respective participant is one of the two or more active- speaker participants. Appeal Br. 10 (Claims App.). In rejecting claim 4 as obvious, the Examiner finds that Anderson’s Current Speaker Indicator 1314 teaches or suggests recitation [2]. Final Act. 5 (citing Anderson ¶ 342); Ans. 11. Appellant contends the Examiner errs because a visual indicator is not analogous to a flag included within data received by a receiver of a computing device, as is required by claim 4. Moreover, even if it was argued that an indicator in some type of data led to the display of indicator 1314, there is no teaching or suggestion that Anderson receives data that would include an indicator analogous to the flag required by claim 4 in order to display indicator 1314. Appeal Br. 5. Appellant argues “it should be apparent that a flag within data that is received by a receiver and processed by a processor is different than a graphic of a user interface in Anderson.” Reply Br. 3. It is not apparent to us that Anderson’s Current Speaker Indicator 1314 fails to at least suggest the recited at least one flag associated with a respective participant, the at least one flag indicating that the respective participant is one of the two or more active-speaker participants. As noted above with respect to claim 1, from which claim 4 depends, Sankar’s list of likely speakers teaches or suggests determining two or more active-speaker participants. Further as discussed, it would have been obvious that a current Appeal 2020-006230 Application 13/919,317 7 or past active speaker would be a likely future speaker. Thus, Anderson’s Current Speaker Indicator, in indicating (i.e., flagging) the current speaker, also indicates that the current speaker is likely to speak again, even if another individual takes over as the current speaker, thereby suggesting modifying Sankar to include the current speaker in the list of likely speakers, thereby making the Current Speaker Indicator an indication that the respective participant is one of the two or more active-speaker participants (i.e., that the current speaker is part of the list of likely speakers). Therefore, we agree with the Examiner that Anderson, in combination with Sankar and Lee, teaches or suggests recitation [2]. Accordingly, we sustain the Examiner’s 35 U.S.C. § 103 rejection of claim 4, and claim 16, which Appellant does not argue separately. Appeal Br. 5. We also sustain the Examiner’s 35 U.S.C. § 103 rejection of claim 12, which Appellant argues is patentable for similar reasons. Id. at 8. Claims 7 and 18 Claim 7, which is representative with respect to itself and claim 18, is reproduced below (disputed limitations emphasized and bracketing added). 7. The computing device of claim 1, further comprising: a memory, the memory configured to store at least one predefined criterion; [3] wherein the two or more active-speaker participants include at least one participant associated with the at least one subset of participant data that meets the at least one predefined criterion; and wherein there is a plurality of predefined criteria, the computing device further comprising a user input device, [4] the user input device being configured to allow a user of the computing device Appeal 2020-006230 Application 13/919,317 8 to choose from among the plurality of predefined criteria to establish the at least one predefined criterion. Appeal Br. 11 (Claims App.). In rejecting claim 7 as obvious, the Examiner finds that Anderson’s selectable options for profile-based subgroup formation teaches or suggests recitations [3] and [4]. Final Act. 6 (citing Anderson ¶¶ 80, 147, 153, 214); Ans. 11-12. Appellant contends the Examiner errs because “Anderson does not disclose that at least one predefined criterion . . . is used when defining the size and composition of subgroups.” Appeal Br. 6. Specifically, Appellant argues “the criterion in claim 7 is a basis for including a participant in the two or more active-speaker participants.” Reply Br. 4. But Appellant does not persuasively distinguish the predefined criterion of recitation [3] from Anderson’s “multiple options for subgroup formation.” Anderson ¶ 80. In particular, Appellant’s characterization of how the claimed predefined criterion is used is not commensurate with the scope of the claimed invention. Recitation [3] notes that “the two or more active-speaker participants include at least one participant associated with the at least one subset of participant data that meets the at least one predefined criterion,” but merely identifying a participant associated with participant data that meets a predefined criterion as an active-speaker participant does not require that the predefined criterion was used in determining the active-speaker participants. The limitations of recitation [3] are broad enough to encompass mere coincidence. Therefore, we agree with the Examiner that the combination of Anderson, Sankar, and Lee teaches or suggests recitation [3]. Appellant further argues that “Anderson does not disclose that the facilitator, using a mouse or otherwise, is allowed to choose from among Appeal 2020-006230 Application 13/919,317 9 predefined criteria to establish the at least one predefined criterion.” Appeal Br. 6; Reply Br. 4. Appellant does not, however, persuasively distinguish a user input device configured to allow a user of a computing device to choose from among the plurality of predefined criteria to establish the at least one predefined criterion from Anderson’s facilitator user interface, which allows a facilitator to select from among “multiple options for subgroup formation.” Anderson ¶ 80. It would have been obvious, based on a user interface for allowing selection from among a plurality of predefine criteria, to provide for an input device to enable such selection. Therefore, we agree with the Examiner that the combination of Anderson, Sankar, and Lee teaches or suggests recitation [4]. Accordingly, we sustain the Examiner’s 35 U.S.C. § 103 rejection of claim 7, and claim 18, which Appellant does not argue separately. Appeal Br. 6. Claims 8 and 19 Claim 8, which is representative with respect to itself and claim 19, is reproduced below (disputed limitations emphasized and bracketing added). 8. The computing device of claim 7, [5] wherein the plurality of predefined criteria includes at least one of: [6] a participant having a minimum seniority level; and a participant being a current active speaker for a minimum accumulated amount time. Appeal Br. 11 (Claims App.). In rejecting claim 8 as obvious, the Examiner finds that Lord’s identification of a job title associated with a speaker teaches or suggests recitations [5] and [6], “wherein the plurality of predefined criteria includes Appeal 2020-006230 Application 13/919,317 10 . . . a participant having a minimum seniority level.” Final Act. 7-8 (citing Lord ¶ 176); Ans. 12. Appellant contends the Examiner errs because recitation [6] “does not teach or suggest anything about how seniority may relate to a job title.” Appeal Br. 7. But the question is not what the recitations of the claimed invention teach or suggest. Rather, the question is whether the prior art teaches or suggest the disputed recitations when given their broadest reasonable interpretations in light of the Specification. Here, the Specification does not define seniority level, but instead merely notes that “[e]ach subset of participant data 40 may correspond to specific information associated with one or more participants in the conference such as . . . participant seniority level.” Spec. ¶ 22; see also id. ¶¶ 27, 35. We agree with the Examiner that, absent specific recitations or a definition in the Specification, a job title (e.g., Chief Executive Officer, Vice President, Senior Engineer, Assistant Manager) teaches or suggests a participant’s seniority level. Ans. 12. Moreover, we agree with the Examiner that it would have been obvious that such job titles can be used in identifying participants having a minimum seniority level (e.g., all participants who hold a so-called C-level position such as Chief Executive Officer, Chief Financial Officer, etc.). Therefore, we agree with the Examiner that Lord, in combination with Anderson, Sankar, and Lee teaches or suggests recitations [5] and [6]. Accordingly, we sustain the Examiner’s 35 U.S.C. § 103 rejection of claim 8, and claim 19, which Appellant does not argue separately. Appeal Br. 7. Appeal 2020-006230 Application 13/919,317 11 CONCLUSION In summary: Claim(s) Rejected 35 U.S.C. § Reference(s)/Basis Affirmed Reversed 1, 4-7, 9, 14-18, 20 103 Anderson, Sankar, Lee 1, 4-7, 9, 14-18, 20 8, 19 103 Anderson, Sankar, Lee, Lord 8, 19 10, 12, 13 103 Anderson, Sankar, Lee, Yerli 10, 12, 13 Overall Outcome 1, 4-10, 12-20 TIME PERIOD FOR RESPONSE No time period for taking subsequent action in connection with this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a)(1)(iv). See 37 C.F.R. § 41.50(f). AFFIRMED