Ex Parte Pushparaj

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Nov 28, 2012

10767392 (P.T.A.B. Nov. 28, 2012)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
____________________

BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
____________________

Ex parte VINODH FRANCIS PUSHPARAJ
____________________

Appeal 2010-006861
Application 10/767,392
Technology Center 2400
____________________

Before ALLEN R. MacDONALD, HUNG H. BUI, and LYNNE E.
PETTIGREW, Administrative Patent Judges.

BUI, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL
Appellant1 seeks our review under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) of the
Examiner’s Final Rejection of claims 1-26. We have jurisdiction under 35
U.S.C. § 6(b).
We AFFIRM.

1 Real Party in Interest is Cisco Technology, Inc. Appeal Brief filed July 28,
2009 (“App. Br.”).
Appeal 2010-006861
Application 10/767,392

2

I. STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Appellant’s Invention
Appellant’s claims are generally directed to a network device at a
central location that receives an incoming call intended for a user and
utilizes a predictive and probability dependent following service to
intelligently route the incoming call to the user at one or more specified
contact devices (e.g., a land line phone, cell phone, pager, desktop PC or
PDA), based on a user preference or a probability order associated with the
user’s usage and availability at a specified contact device in order to reach
the user more efficiently. This way the system does not have to broadcast to
all of the user’s contact devices in order to reach the user for every call. See
generally Spec. pg. 1, ll. 4-5, and Abstract.
Claims on Appeal
Claims 1, 6, 20, 22 and 26 are independent. Claims 1 and 6 are
representative and are reproduced below with disputed limitations
emphasized:

1. A network device, comprising:

a user interface configured to receive a preference from
a user to associate at least one contact device and at least one
time slot;

a predictor configured to predict a probability of the user
answering an incoming call intended for the user at each of a
plurality of contact devices;

a first port to receive the incoming call intended for the
user;
Appeal 2010-006861
Application 10/767,392

3

a second port to send contact signals to at least one of the
plurality of contact devices responsive to the incoming call,
depending upon at least one of the preference and the
probability;

a processor to:

determine connection information based upon the
contact device at which the user responds to the contact
signals; and

transmit the connection information to the
predictor to allow the predictor to update probability data
associated with the user.

6. A method of contacting a user, comprising:

receiving an incoming call for a user at a first device;

accessing user preferences for contacting the user;

predicting a probability of the user answering the
incoming call from at least one contact device based upon the
user preferences and probability data;

transmitting a contact signal to at least one device based
on at least one of the user preferences and the probability;

determining the success or failure of the contact signal by
determining whether the user answered the incoming call; and

updating the probability data based on the success or
failure of the contact signal.

Appeal 2010-006861
Application 10/767,392

4

Evidence Considered
The prior art relied upon by the Examiner in rejecting the claims on
appeal is:
Horvitz U.S. 6,618,716 B1 Sep. 9, 2003

Examiner’s Rejections
Claims 1-26 stand rejected under 35 U. S. C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Horvitz (Ans. 3-8).

II. ISSUES
Under § 103(a), the dispositive issue on appeal is whether the
Examiner has erred in rejecting claims 1-26 as being unpatentable over
Horvitz. In particular, the issue turns on whether:
(1) Horvitz discloses “a user interface configured to receive a
preference from a user to associate at least one contact device and at least
one time slot” and “a predictor configured to predict a probability of the
user answering an incoming call intended for the user at each of a plurality
of contact devices,” as recited in independent claims 1 and 20; (App. Br. 6-
9)
(2) Horvitz discloses “a memory to store the probability data, the
probability data comprising a list of associations between contact devices
and time slots,” as recited in claim 2; (App. Br. 10-11)
(3) Horvitz discloses three different modes of operation and a user
being able “to select at least one of a predictive mode, a combination mode,
and a preference mode” for determining which contact devices the user
Appeal 2010-006861
Application 10/767,392

5

should be reached in response to an incoming call, as recited in claim 3;
(App. Br. 11-12)
(4) Horvitz discloses “predicting a probability of the user
answering the incoming call from at least one contact device based upon the
user preferences and probability data,” as recited in claims 6, 7, 11 and 22;
(App. Br. 12-13)
(5) Horvitz discloses “accessing an indicator specifying at least
one of a predictive mode, a combination mode, and a preference mode,” as
recited in claim 8; (App. Br. 13)
(6) Horvitz discloses “applying a weighting factor based on the
user preferences to the probability,” as recited in claim 9; (App. Br. 14)
(7) Horvitz discloses “transmitting the contact signal to a plurality
of contact devices based on at least one of the user preferences and the
probability,” as recited in claim 10; (App. Br. 14)
(8) Horvitz discloses “transmitting a contact signal further
comprising transmitting one of the group consisting of: a phone call, a fax
signal, an instant message or a video call,” as recited in claim 12; (App. Br.
15-16)
(9) Horvitz discloses “determining at what contact device the user
answers the incoming call,” as recited in claim 13; (App. Br. 16-17)
(10) Horvitz discloses “raising the probability of the contact device
at which the user answers the incoming call,” as recited in claim 14; (App.
Br. 17)
(11) Horvitz discloses “determining that a success rate is below a
failure threshold after a predetermined period of time” and “querying the
Appeal 2010-006861
Application 10/767,392

6

user to select a broadcast mode, select a probability mode, or update the
user preferences,” as recited in claim 15; (App. Br. 17-19)
(12) Horvitz discloses “determining that a success rate is above a
success threshold” and “determining a probability for each of a plurality of
contact devices based upon past successes,” as recited in claim 16; (App. Br.
19-20)
(13) Horvitz discloses “determining a first set of contact devices
having a probability of success within a predetermined range,” “sending
multiple contact signals to contact devices in the first set in parallel” and “if
no success occurs, determining a next set of contact devices having a
probability of success within a next range,” as recited in claim 17; (App. Br.
20-21)
(14) Horvitz discloses “repeating the determining and sending
processes until a success occurs,” as recited in claim 18; (App. Br. 21-22)
(15) Horvitz discloses “altering at least one of the predetermined
ranges and the next range depending upon successes,” as recited in claim
19; (App. Br. 22) and
(16) Horvitz discloses “accessing a first probability of the first user
answering the incoming call on a first contact device” and, when a failure is
determined “accessing a second probability of the first user answering the
incoming call on a second contact device from the plurality of contact
devices,” as recited in claim 26. (App. Br. 23-24)

III. ANALYSIS
We consider Appellant’s arguments seriatim as they are presented in
the Appeal Brief, pages 6-24 and the Reply Brief, pages 1-3.
Appeal 2010-006861
Application 10/767,392

7

Claims 1, 4, 5 and 20

With respect to claims 1, 4, 5 and 20, Appellant contends that Horvitz
does not disclose “a user interface configured to receive a preference from a
user to associate at least one contact device and at least one time slot” and
“a predictor configured to predict a probability of the user answering an
incoming call intended for the user at each of a plurality of contact
devices.” App. Br. 6-9. In particular, Appellant makes several arguments
against Horvitz, including: (1) Horvitz does not make a probability
determination on where to send an alert; rather, Horvitz makes a
determination on whether to send the alert at all and if the decision is made
to send the alert, the alert will always be sent to the same computer the user
is working on (App. Br. 7); (2) there is no reason for the user profile in
Horvitz to include a preference from a user to associate at least one contact
device and at least one time slot, as recited in independent claim 1 (App. Br.
7); (3) Horvitz does not disclose sending an alert anywhere other than the
computer the user is working on (App. Br. 8); and (4) there is no reason for
the system of Horvitz to calculate a probability for each of a plurality of
contact devices when the system already knows where the user is located,
and the probability in Horvitz has nothing to do with a probability of the
user answering an incoming call intended for the user at each of a plurality
of contact devices, as recited in independent claims 1 and 20 (App. Br. 9).
However, we find these arguments unpersuasive. This is because
Appellant’s arguments are predicated upon an incomplete reading of
Horvitz, that is, there is only one contact device at a single location (i.e., user
computer 20, shown in FIG. 1) and all alerts are sent to the same user
Appeal 2010-006861
Application 10/767,392

8

computer the user is working on. App. Br. 7. As correctly found by the
Examiner, additional contact devices can also be provided to reach a user,
including, for example, a cell phone or a pager, when an alert is received at
the computer system, shown in FIG. 2, and the user is not working at the
computer system. Ans. 18; also see col. 2, ll. 63-65; col. 9, ll. 52-57 of
Horvitz.
FIG. 2 of Horvitz, as reproduced below, is helpful in understanding
Horvitz’s invention.

FIG. 2 depicts an alert management system of Horvitz in which an
alert is received and is transmitted to a user based on probability, user
preference, or history of previous alerts.

As shown in FIG. 2, the computer system of Horvitz includes a
peripheral information notification and alert module 202 arranged to receive
all types of alerts from several sources, including external devices such as
telephones, and pass along the alerts, via a queue 508 (see col. 6, ll. 3-4; col.
9, ll. 5-13, FIG. 5 of Horvitz); an attentional status module 204 to generate a
probability by considering user profile 302, shown in FIG. 3, that the user is
Appeal 2010-006861
Application 10/767,392

9

receptive to receiving an alert or an incoming call intended for the user (see
col. 7, ll. 5-15 of Horvitz); and a notification decision making module 206,
shown in FIG. 6, to alert the user of the alerts received from the peripheral
information notification and alert module 202 based on the probability, user
preference, or history of previous alerts (see col. 9, ll. 29-51 of Horvitz).
Ans. 18-20.
FIG. 6 of Horvitz is reproduced below.

FIG. 6 depicts a notification decision making module 206 to alert user
604 of the alerts received 600 based on probability 602, user preference, or
history of previous alerts 608.

According to Horvitz, an example of alerts received from the
peripheral information notification and alert module 202 is an incoming call
intended for the user (see col. 2, ll. 3-4 of Horvitz). Upon receipt of such an
incoming call “the [computer] system in one embodiment checks to see if
Appeal 2010-006861
Application 10/767,392

10

the user is around or not at the desktop system before making a decision that
the only way to reach the user is to ‘render’ the notification via the cell
phone.” See col. 13, lines 43-47 of Horvitz, (emphasis added).
In view of such a disclosure from Horvitz, we agree with the
Examiner’s findings and conclusions that Appellant’s claimed features “user
interface configured to receive a preference from a user to associate at least
one contact device and at least one time slot” and “predictor configured to
predict a probability of the user answering an incoming call intended for the
user at each of a plurality of contact devices” would have been obvious in
view of the attentional status module 204 using a user profile 302 to generate
a probability as discussed in col. 7, ll. 5-15 of Horvitz. Ans. 7 (emphasis
added).
Appellant further argues that the decision to alert a user in Horvitz is
based on looking for the user, not on a user preference or a probability, and
that nowhere in Horvitz is there any disclosure of a decision "how" an alert
is sent and to which device an alert is sent that is based on user preferences
associating a device and a time slot or probability a user will answer at a
device, as recited in claims 1, 6, 20, and 22. Rep. Br. 3. However, we find
Appellant’s arguments unavailing. As discussed supra, FIG. 6 of Horvitz
shows the notification decision making module 206 used to alert user 604 of
the alerts received 600 based on probability 602, user preference, or history
of previous alerts 608. See col. 9, ll. 29-51 of Horvitz.
For the reasons set forth above, we do not find any error in the
Examiner’s rejection of claims 1, 4, 5 and 20.

Appeal 2010-006861
Application 10/767,392

11

Claim 2
With respect to claim 2, Appellant contends that Horvitz does not
disclose “a memory to store the probability data, the probability data
comprising a list of associations between contact devices and time slots.”
App. Br. 10-11. However, we disagree. System memory 22, as shown in
FIG. 1 of Horvitz, can be used to store probability data (for example, the
probability that the user is receptive to receiving an alert or an incoming call
intended for the user), and that probability data can also associate the alert or
the incoming call with a particular length of time stored in the queue 508,
shown in FIG. 5. See col. 9, ll. 29-51 of Horvitz. As such, we agree with
the Examiner’s discussion of Horvitz and the response provided to the
above-noted arguments made by Appellant (see Ans. 20). We therefore do
not find any error in the Examiner’s rejection of claim 2.

Claim 3
With respect to claim 3, Appellant contends that Horvitz does not
disclose three different modes of operation and a user being able “to select at
least one of a predictive mode, a combination mode, and a preference mode”
for determining which contact devices the user should be reached in
response to an incoming call. App. Br. 11-12.
However, we are not persuaded by Appellant’s contention. We see no
reason, and Appellant has not demonstrated why these modes of operation
cannot be incorporated into an alert management system of Horvitz. As the
Supreme Court explained, “[t]he combination of familiar elements according
Appeal 2010-006861
Application 10/767,392

12

to known methods is likely to be obvious when it does no more than yield
predictable results.” KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 416
(2007). The Supreme Court went on to state that “when a patent ‘simply
arranges old elements with each performing the same function it had been
known to perform’ and yields no more than one would expect from such an
arrangement, the combination is obvious.” Id. at 417 (quoting Sakraida v.
Ag Pro, Inc., 425 U.S. 273, 282 (1976)). We agree with the Examiner’s
finding that these modes of operation are simply design choice and yield no
more than one skilled in the art would expect from such an arrangement.
Ans. 8-9. Therefore, we do not find any error in the Examiner’s rejection of
claim 3.
Claims 6, 7, 11 and 22
With respect to claims 6, 7, 11 and 22, Appellant contends that
Horvitz does not disclose “predicting a probability of the user answering the
incoming call from at least one contact device based upon the user
preferences and probability data.” App. Br. 12-13.
We agree with the Examiner’s discussion of Horvitz and the response
provided to Appellant’s arguments (see Ans. 21). We agree with the
Examiner’s findings and conclusions and adopt them as our own. Therefore,
we do not find any error in the Examiner’s rejection of claims 6, 7, 11 and
22.
Claims 8-10, 12-19 and 26
With respect to claims 8-10, 12-19 and 26, Appellant argues that
Horvitz does not disclose several features as stated in Issues section.
However, we do not find Appellant’s arguments persuasive. Instead, we
agree with the Examiner’s findings with respect to Horvitz and the response
Appeal 2010-006861
Application 10/767,392

13

provided to Appellant’s arguments (see Ans. 21-30). As such, we do not
find any error in the Examiner’s rejection of claims 8-10, 12-19 and 26.

V. CONCLUSION
On the record before us, we conclude that the Examiner has not erred
in rejecting claims 1-26 under 35 U. S. C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable
over Horvitz.

VI. DECISION
As such, we affirm the Examiner’s final rejection of claims 1-26
under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a).
No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with
this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a)(1)(iv) (2011).

AFFIRMED

tj