Ex Parte Kraenzel

Patent Trial and Appeal BoardSep 15, 2014

10736848 (P.T.A.B. Sep. 15, 2014)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE ____________________ BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD ____________________ Ex parte CARL JOSEPH KRAENZEL ____________________ Appeal 2012-002729 Application 10/736,848 Technology Center 2400 ____________________ Before MURRIEL E. CRAWFORD, BIBHU R. MOHANTY, and MICHAEL C. ASTORINO, Administrative Patent Judges. CRAWFORD, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL STATEMENT OF THE CASE Appellant appeals under 35 U.S.C. § 134 from a final rejection of claims 29, 30, 32, 33, 35, 36, 38, 41–56, and 58–92. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). Exemplary Claim Exemplary claim 29 reads as follows: 29. In a system comprising a network, a server connected to the network and hosting an information module, a first interface to a communications link for connecting the server to a remote client, and a second interface for connecting the server to at least one data source, a method for monitoring a communication between human individuals and retrieving Appeal 2012-002729 Application 10/736,848 2 information relevant to the communication, the method comprising: automatically monitoring, via the first interface, a communication between a user associated with the remote client and at least one other individual; automatically determining from the monitored communication, in real-time, one or more topic words associated with the monitored communication; and automatically searching the at least one data source in real-time during the communication for the one or more topic words appearing in the monitored communication to generate search results for documents relevant to the context or the one or more key topics of the communication. The Examiner relies on the following prior art as evidence of unpatentability: Anthony US 5,815,830 Sept. 29, 1998 Liddy US 5,873,056 Feb. 16, 1999 Fratkina US 2001/0049688 A1 Dec. 6, 2001 Beck US 6,718,366 B2 Apr. 6, 2004 Teng US 6,976,018 B2 Dec. 13, 2005 Burdick US 7,185,001 B1 Feb. 27, 2007 Bode US 7,206,778 B2 Apr. 17, 2007 Hull US 7,257,589 B1 Aug. 14, 2007 Michael R. Song et al. (US Provisional Application 60/482,171, filed June 24, 2003) (“Song”). Rejections on Appeal Claims 29, 30, 35, 36, 38, 41–49, 52–56, 65–74, and 77–81 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Bode, Beck, Anthony, and Hull. Claims 89–92 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Bode, Beck, Anthony, Hull, and Song. Appeal 2012-002729 Application 10/736,848 3 Claims 58–61, 63, 82–85, and 87 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Bode, Beck, Anthony, Hull, and Fratkina. Claim 32 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Bode, Beck, Anthony, Hull, and Teng. Claim 33 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Bode, Beck, Anthony, Hull, and Burdick. Claims 50, 51, 75, and 76 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Bode, Beck, Anthony, Hull, and obviousness. Claims 62, 64, 86, and 88 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Bode, Beck, Anthony, Hull, and Liddy. Appellant’s Contention Appellant contends that the Examiner erred in rejecting claim 29 because the prior art does not disclose automatically determining one or more topic words associated with the monitored communication (App. Br. 7). Issue on Appeal Did the Examiner err in rejecting the appealed claims as being obvious because the cited references fail to suggest the argued limitations? ANALYSIS We have reviewed the Examiner’s rejections in light of Appellant’s arguments that the Examiner has erred. Appeal 2012-002729 Application 10/736,848 4 As to Appellant’s above contention, we agree. The Examiner relies on Anthony for teaching the step of automatically determining one or more topic words associated with the communication. We find that Anthony does not disclose this subject matter. Rather, Anthony discloses that the topic words are chosen by the user and placed in a database by the user (col. 4, ll. 39–44). After the database of topic words is formed based on input by the user, the Anthony method automatically searches for the occurrence of the topic words in the body of text (col. 4, ll. 63–65). In view of the foregoing, we will not sustain the Examiner’s rejection of claim 29. We will likewise not sustain the Examiner’s rejection of claims 30, 35, 36, 38, 41–49, 52–56, 65–74, and 77–81 rejected as obvious under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as obvious over Bode, Beck, Anthony, and Hull. We will also not sustain the Examiner’s remaining rejections over the remaining claims under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) because each of these claims requires automatically determining the topic words associated with the communication, and the Examiner relies on Anthony for teaching this subject matter in each of the remaining rejections. DECISION The decision of the Examiner is reversed. REVERSED hh