Ex Parte Bethea et al

Patent Trial and Appeal BoardMar 24, 2016

12756813 (P.T.A.B. Mar. 24, 2016)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE 121756,813 04/08/2010 99337 7590 03/25/2016 FERENCE & ASSOCIATES LLC 409 BROAD STREET PITTSBURGH, PA 15143 FIRST NAMED INVENTOR Timothy J. Bethea 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 ATTORNEY DOCKET NO. ARC920090059US 1 (890.013) CONFIRMATION NO. 1394 EXAMINER MCCORMICK, GABRIELLE A ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 3629 MAILDATE DELIVERY MODE 03/25/2016 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 TIMOTHY J. BETHEA, NEIL H. BOYETTE, ISAACK. CHENG, VIKAS KRISHNA, YOLANDA A. RANKIN, and YONGSHIN YU Appeal2013-008110 Application 12/756,813 1 Technology Center 3600 Before MURRIEL E. CRAWFORD, BRUCE T. WIEDER, and AMEE A. SHAH, Administrative Patent Judges. WIEDER, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL This is a decision on appeal under 35 U.S.C. Â§ 134 from the Examiner's rejection of claims 1-20 and 25-28. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. Â§ 6(b). We AFFIRM. CLAIMED SUBJECT MATTER Appellant's claimed invention "relates to software and systems used in data centers, call centers and/or customer support applications," and 1 According to Appellants, the real party in interest is International Business Machines Corporation. (Appeal Br. 3.) Appeal2013-008110 Application 12/756,813 specifically to a "method, system and computer program product for a real- time collaborative technical support (RTCTS) system." (Spec. i-fi-f l, 5.) Claims 1, 11, and 25 are the independent claims on appeal. Claim 11 is representative and reproduced below: 11. A computer implemented method comprising the steps of: facilitating collaboration in a real-time support provider environment of at least two support people with said support provider environment, comprising the steps of: combining at least two of said support people into a temporary group to support a related work area of said support people; forming-maintaining at least one social network based upon said temporary group to support requests in said related work area; and providing a visualization of said social network. REJECTIONS Claims 11-15 and 17-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. Â§ 101 as being directed to ineligible subject matter. Claims 1-20 and 25-28 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. Â§ 103(a) as being unpatentable over Martinez (US 7 ,444,323 B2, iss. Oct. 28, 2008) and Alaniz (US 2008/0195897 Al, pub. Aug. 14, 2008). ANALYSIS The Â§ 101 Rejection Independent claim 11 and dependent claims 12-15 and 17-19 are rejected under Â§ 101. (Final Action 2-3.) Appellants provide no argument against this rejection. Therefore, we summarily affirm the rejection of claims 11-15 and 17-19 underÂ§ 101. 2 Appeal2013-008110 Application 12/756,813 The Â§' 103 (a) Rejection Claims 1-20 and 25-28 are rejected underÂ§ 103(a) in view of Martinez and Alaniz. Independent claims 1, 11, and 25 are argued together. Dependent claim 26 is separately argued, however, dependent claims 2-10, 12-20, 27, and 28 are not separately argued. Therefore, claims 1-20, 25, 27, and 28 stand or fall together. See 37 C.F.R. Â§ 41.37(c)(l)(iv) (2012). Visualization Appellants argue that "Martinez does not explicitly disclose visualization of the social network" and that "Alaniz does not alleviate this deficiency in Martinez, but rather merely mentions collaboration software so technicians can 'discuss and debate troubleshooting'. See i-f [0036]. This is far short of visualizing a social network." (Appeal Br. 13.) As an initial matter, we note that obviousness is more than what is explicitly disclosed in a cited reference. "If a person of ordinary skill can implement a predictable variation, Â§ 103 likely bars its patentability." KSR Int'!. Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 417 (2007). In making the obviousness rejection, the Examiner finds that "Martinez discloses communication links between devices (C5; L 13-23: thus a means for facilitating collaboration) but does not disclose a visualization of the social network that allows insertion of an expert into said social network." (Final Action 4.) The Examiner further finds that Alaniz "discloses a collaboration program that allows technicians, outside experts and others to participate in remote troubleshooting. (P[0036])." (Id.) From this, the Examiner determines that 3 Appeal2013-008110 Application 12/756,813 (Id.) it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to have included a visualization of the social network that allows insertion of an expert into said social network, as disclosed by Alaniz in the system disclosed by Martinez, for the motivation of providing a method of remote collaboration in order to debate and discuss (Alaniz; P[0036]) the content under review of Martinez's system. Martinez discloses review meetings (C12; L28-37). The combination with Alaniz enables a meeting to take place via collaboration tools. Alaniz, which relates to "[m]ethods, systems, and computer-readable media for troubleshooting a problem associated with a communication system" (Alaniz, Abstract), discloses a troubleshooting tool (TT) program. (Alaniz i-f 21.) By using the TT program 126 in combination with collaboration software, entities located remotely from a technician using a workstation to access the TT program 126 such as, but not limited to, other technicians, customers, call centers, outside experts, and vendors, may be able to view graphical user interfaces provided by the TT program 126 via workstations associated with each of the entities. The remotely located entities may be able to discuss and debate troubleshooting issues with the technician accessing the TT program 126 to assist in troubleshooting a customer's communication system 146 problem. (Alaniz i-f 36.) In other words, Alaniz discloses a group discussion among people working on a problem where the people in the discussion can "view graphical user interfaces provided by the TT program." (See id.) Appellants have not explained why it would not have been a predictable variation that a person of ordinary skill can implement "to have included a visualization of the social network that allows insertion of an 4 Appeal2013-008110 Application 12/756,813 expert into said social network, as disclosed by Alaniz in the system disclosed by Martinez." (See Final Action 4, see also KSR, 550 U.S. at 417.) Therefore, Appellants have not persuaded us that the Examiner erred in determining that the combination of Martinez and Alaniz discloses visualization of a social network. Hindsight Appellants argue that "the Examiner is using separate teachings of the references stitched together using improper hindsight." (Appeal Br. 14.) Appellants do not provide specifics or explain why the combination of Martinez and Alaniz was based on improper hindsight. The Examiner, however, explains that it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to have included a visualization of the social network that allows insertion of an expert into said social network, as disclosed by Alaniz in the system disclosed by Martinez, for the motivation of providing a method of remote collaboration in order to debate and discuss (Alaniz; P[0036]) the content under review of Martinez's system. (Final Action 4.) Appellants have not rebutted the Examiner's prima facie case and, therefore, have not persuaded us that the Examiner relied on improper hindsight in combining the Martinez and Alaniz references. For the above reasons, we are not persuaded that the Examiner erred in rejecting claims 1-20, 25, 27, and 28 underÂ§ 103. 5 Appeal2013-008110 Application 12/756,813 Otficial Notice Claim 26 recites: "An installation package configured to install said computer program product of Claim 25, residing in said computer readable memory." The Examiner finds that Martinez does not disclose an installation package, however, the Examiner takes Official Notice that installation packages are old and well known and Martinez would have been motivated to use one in order to have the software applications of the system permanently reside in memory (Note: C5; L51-53: information necessary to operate the system resides in the storage). (Final Action 5.) Appellants argue that "the Examiner has failed to provide the type and manner of information required to take such Notice." (Appeal Br. 14.) Specifically, Appellants cite MPEP Â§ 2144.03(A) which states: "Official notice unsupported by documentary evidence should only be taken by the examiner \'l1here the facts asserted to be \'l1ell=kno\'l1n, or to be common knowledge in the art are capable of instant and unquestionable demonstration as being well-known." (See Appeal Br. 14--15.) Appellants further cite MPEP Â§ 2144.03(A) for the statement: "It would not be appropriate for the examiner to take official notice of facts without citing a prior art reference where the facts asserted to be well known are not capable of instant and unquestionable demonstration as being well-known." (See Appeal Br. 15.) In view of the Examiner's finding "that installation packages are old and well known" (Final Action 5), the Examiner has presented a prima facie case for taking official notice. (See MPEP Â§ 2144.03(A).) The burden is now on Appellants to rebut the prima facie case, e.g., by arguing that the 6 Appeal2013-008110 Application 12/756,813 facts asserted by the Examiner were not well-known or common knowledge in the art. Instead, Appellants argue "that the Examiner has not adequately made an indication that facts asserted to be well-known are 'capable of instant and unquestionable demonstration as being well-known'." (Appeal Br. 15.) Having not rebutted the Examiner's prima facie case, Appellants have not met their burden. Therefore, we are not persuaded that the Examiner erred in taking official notice that installation packages are old and well known. For the above reasons, we are not persuaded that the Examiner erred in rejecting claim 26 underÂ§ 103(a). DECISION The Examiner's rejection of claims 11-15 and 17-19 under 35 U.S.C. Â§ 101 is affirmed. The Examiner's rejection of claims 1-20 and 25-28 under 35 U.S.C. Â§ 103(a) is affirmed. No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. Â§ 1.136(a)(l )(iv). AFFIRMED 7