Ex Parte Bushey et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Sep 17, 2012

10779945 (P.T.A.B. Sep. 17, 2012)

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.
10/779,945 02/17/2004 Robert R. Bushey LB1022 (00046) 9366
82744 7590 09/17/2012
AT&T Legal Department - JW
Attn: Patent Docketing
Room 2A-207
One AT&T Way
Bedminster, NJ 07921
EXAMINER
BORSETTI, GREG
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2626
MAIL DATE DELIVERY MODE
09/17/2012 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 ROBERT R. BUSHEY, JOHN M. MARTIN,
and BENJAMIN A. KNOTT
____________________

Appeal 2010-005887
Application 10/779,945
Technology Center

____________________

Before DEBRA K. STEPHENS, KALYAN K. DESHPANDE, and RAMA
G. ELLURU, Administrative Patent Judges.

STEPHENS, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL
Appeal 2010-005887
Application 10/779,945

2
Appellants appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) (2002) from a final
rejection of claims 1-20. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We REVERSE.

Introduction
According to Appellants, the invention relates “to a system and
method for managing recognition errors in a multiple dialog state
environment” (Spec. 1, § TECHNICAL FIELD OF THE INVENTION).

STATEMENT OF THE CASE

Exemplary Claim
Claim 1 is an exemplary claim and is reproduced below:
1. A system for managing recognition errors m a multiple
dialog state environment comprising:

an error management module having a global error
counter, a global error set point, a first dialog state error
counter, a first dialog state error set point, a second dialog state
error counter, a second dialog state error set point, a third dialog
state error counter, and a third dialog state error set point;

a first dialog state module operable to interact with a user
to perform at least one interaction task;

a second dialog state module operable to interact with a
user to perform at least one interaction task;

a third dialog state module operable to interact with a
user to perform at least one interaction task;

each dialog state module further operable to:
Appeal 2010-005887
Application 10/779,945

3
determine whether the interaction task has been
successfully completed or whether a recognition error has
occurred;

update the global error counter and the respective dialog
counter if an error is detected;

direct the user to an agent if the global error counter
equals the global error set point;

direct the user to a different dialog state if the respective
dialog state error counter equals the respective dialog state error
set point;

re-prompt the user to complete the interaction task if the
respective dialog state error counter is less than the respective
dialog state error set point; and

selectively directing the user to a subsequent interaction
task after successful completion of the interaction task.

References
Dunn US 6,138,008 Oct. 24, 2000
Groin US 6,751,591 B1 Jun. 15, 2004

Rejections
(1) Claims 4 and 5 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 102(e) as being
anticipated by Gorin.
(2) Claims 1-3 and 6-20 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
being unpatentable over Gorin and Dunn.

Appeal 2010-005887
Application 10/779,945

4
ISSUE 1
35 U.S.C. § 102(e): claims 4 and 5
Appellants argue their invention is not anticipated by Gorin (App. Br.
6). Specifically, Appellants contend the portions of Gorin the Examiner
relied upon do not describe a global error counter (id.). Instead, according to
Appellants, Goring describes a process for estimating a recognition
probability based, in part, on a dialog history (id.). Further, Appellants
argue “counter” does not appear in Gorin (id.).

Issue 1: Has the Examiner erred in finding Gorin discloses
determining “whether to direct a user to an agent based upon the global error
counter” as recited in claim 4?

ANALYSIS
The Examiner contends Gorin discloses a probability decision block
2200 which routes a user based on a probability of recognition (Ans. 24).
Therefore, according to the Examiner, to generate a correct probability of
recognition, the probability decision block 2200 would inherently have to
know the overall error count (id.).
We disagree. We do not find generating a probability of recognition
would be recognized by skilled artisans as being necessarily based on the
overall error count, i.e., Gorin does not necessarily function in accordance
with a global error count. Other criteria may be used to determine the
probability of recognition (e.g., lack of recognition of a similar word, etc.).
Although Gorin makes a determination whether to direct the user based on
the probability of recognition, this probability of recognition does not
Appeal 2010-005887
Application 10/779,945

5
necessarily function in accordance with a global error count (see col. 10, ll.
4-8).
Thus, we find Gorin does not disclose “whether to direct a user to an agent
based upon the global error counter.” Accordingly, the Examiner erred in
finding Gorin discloses the invention as recited in claim 4. Claim 5 which
depends from claim 4 thus stands with claim 4. Therefore, the Examiner
erred in rejecting claims 4 and 5 under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) for anticipation
by Gorin.

ISSUE 2
35 U.S.C. § 103(a): claims 1-3 and 6-20
Appellants assert their invention is not obvious over Gorin and Dunn
because neither Dunn nor Gorin teaches or suggests a global counter (App.
Br. 7-8).
Issue 2: Has the Examiner erred in finding the combination of Gorin
and Dunn teaches or suggests “a global error counter,” as recited in claims 1,
14, and 18?

ANALYSIS
With respect to claims 1 and 18, we find Gorin does not teach or
suggest “direct the user to an agent if the global error counter equals the
global error set point” for the reasons set forth above in Issue 1.
Specifically, we find Gorin does not teach or suggest that the probability of
recognition is inherently based on the of the global error count..
With respect to claim 14, we find Gorin does not teach or suggest “a
global error counter operable to record the total number of recognition
Appeal 2010-005887
Application 10/779,945

6
errors.” The Examiner points to Gorin as teaching this limitation (Ans. 18);
however, while we find Gorin teaches storing natural language
understanding errors, we do not agree Gorin teaches or suggests a global
error counter operable to count the number of recognition errors. Indeed,
Gorin instead teaches “[t]he training database 165 stores NLU errors
collected from interactions with human users and models built based on
those errors” (col. 4, ll. 3-28). Thus, the Examiner has not shown storing the
errors is counting the errors.
The Examiner has not shown Dunn cures the deficiencies of Gorin.
Accordingly, the Examiner erred in finding the combination of Gorin
and Dunn teaches or suggests the invention as recited in independent claims
1, 14, and 18. Dependent claims 2, 3, 6-13, 15-19, and 20 stand with their
respective independent claims. Therefore, the Examiner erred in rejecting
claims 1-3 and 6-20 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) for obviousness over Gorin
and Dunn.

DECISION
The Examiner’s rejection of claims 4 and 5 under 35 U.S.C. §102(b)
as being anticipated by Gorin is reversed.
The Examiner’s rejection of claims 1-3 and 6-20 under 35 U.S.C.
§103(a) as being obvious over Gorin and Dunn is reversed.

REVERSED

ELD