Ex Parte Russell et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Jun 22, 2017

13665527 (P.T.A.B. Jun. 22, 2017)

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.
13/665,527 10/31/2012 Steven Paul Russell PING-004 4451
70406 7590 06/26/2017
WAGNER BLECHER LLP
123 WESTRIDGE DRIVE
WATSONVTT.T.E, CA 95076
EXAMINER
LERNER, MARTIN
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2657
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
06/26/2017 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):
patents @ wagnerblecher.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte STEVEN PAUL RUSSELL, GUY R. VANBUSKIRK and
ANDREW W. KITTLER
Appeal 2017-004511
Application 13/665,5271
Technology Center 2600
Before JEFFREY S. SMITH, JOHNNY A. KUMAR, and
TERRENCE W. McMILLIN, Administrative Patent Judges.
McMILLIN, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
This is a decision on appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) of the Final
Rejection of claims 1—12 and 25—28. Final Act. 1. We have jurisdiction
under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We AFFIRM.
1 According to Appellants, the real party in interest is Theatro Labs, Inc.
App. Br. 1.
Appeal 2017-004511
Application 13/665,527
REJECTIONS ON APPEAL
Claims 1—3, 8, 9, 12, 25, 27, and 28 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a) as being unpatentable over Rosenbaum et al. (US 8,060,412 B2,
published Nov. 15, 2011) and Vawter (US 2008/0041937 Al, published Feb.
21,2008). Final Act. 2.
Claims 4—7 and 26 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Rosenbaum, Vawter, and Hertschuh et al. (US 8,630,851
Bl, published Jan. 14,2014). Final Act. 10.
Claims 10 and 11 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Rosenbaum, Vawter, and Swartz et al. (US 6,937,998 Bl,
published Aug. 30, 2005). Final Act. 14.
THE CLAIMED INVENTION
The present invention generally relates to “structuring
communications in an observation platform.” Spec. 122. Independent
claim 1 is directed to a method; independent claim 12 is directed to a non-
transitory computer-usable storage medium; and independent claim 25 is
directed to a system. App. Br. 13, 15, 16.
Claim 1 recites
1. A method for performing structured communications in
an observation platform, comprising:
receiving a signal from a first communication device at a
second communication device, wherein said second
communication device is communicatively coupled with a
computer system, wherein said computer system is associated
with an organization, wherein a first characteristic of said signal
corresponds to an audible source and a second characteristic of
said signal corresponds to information indicative of a
geographic position of said first communication device,
2
Appeal 2017-004511
Application 13/665,527
wherein said second communication device is a radio base
station that receives said signal directly from said first
communication device and relays said signal to said computer
system;
identifying, by said computer system, that a user is
associated with said first communication device based on user
credentials that are one of a voice command provided by said
user and a text input provided by said user;
converting, by said computer system, said audible source
of said signal to text;
deriving, by said computer system, a query related to said
organization based on said text;
compiling, by said computer system, a response to said
query, wherein said response represents said organization; and
sending said response to said first communication device,
wherein said response is audible at said first communication
device.
ANALYSIS
We have reviewed the Examiner’s rejections in light of Appellants’
arguments that the Examiner erred. We are not persuaded that Appellants
identify reversible error. Upon consi deration of the arguments presented in
the Appeal Brief and Reply Brief, we agree with the Examiner that all the
pending claims are unpatentable over the cited combination of references.
We adopt as our own the findings and reasons set forth in the rejection from
which this appeal is taken and in the Examiner's Answer, We provide the
following explanation to highlight and address specific arguments and
findings primarily for emphasis.
Appellants contend the references do not teach “identifying, by said
computer system, that a user is associated with said first communication
3
Appeal 2017-004511
Application 13/665,527
device based on user credentials that are one of a voice command provided
by said user and a text input provided by said user,” as recited in claim 1.
App. Br. 8. Specifically, Appellants argue that “Rosenbuam’s user
identification relies upon credentials automatically provided by a device or
by the system in which the device is used, which is very different than [the]
user credentials provided by the user.” App. Br. 9. Appellants further argue
that the proposed modification of Rosenbaum “would change the principle
of operation” by changing “from Rosenbaum’s device/system which
provides the credentials on its own, to a system in which a user provides the
credentials.” App. Br. 10.
In response, the Examiner finds Rosenbaum describes identifying that
a user is associated with a communication device, and Vawter teaches “a
text input of a user identification and/or password to identify a user.” Ans.
5, citing Rosenbaum col. 10,11. 9—12; Ans. 7, 17, citing Vawter || 50, 51,
55. The Examiner further finds “[a]dding a password protection feature
would simply be a supplemental feature in a multifunctional device” and
“[t]here would be nothing inconsistent about adding password protection to
a cellular telephone that already provides a caller id function, too.” Ans. 20.
We agree with the Examiner.
As cited by the Examiner, Rosenbaum discloses “the store system 1
identifies the customer via the caller identification code and accesses the
customer’s profile.” Rosenbaum col. 10,11.9—12. Vawter discloses
“[security module 330 may generate authorization devices and/or
mechanisms, such as passwords, pseudo-random numbers, tokens, biometric
identifiers, and/or other types of identifiers to establish an identity of a user
or device.” Vawter | 50. The claimed “identifying, by said computer
4
Appeal 2017-004511
Application 13/665,527
system, that a user is associated with said first communication device based
on user credentials that are one of a voice command provided by said user
and a text input provided by said user,” as recited in claim 1, encompasses
Rosenbaum’s identifying that a user is associated with a device through
caller ID, as modified by Vawter’s identifying a user with a password.
Although Rosenbaum describes that “immediate access via caller
identification to a user’s profile” is “advantageous,” there is no preclusion
from providing a supplemental feature such as adding password protection.
Rosenbaum col. 5,11. 9—14. Therefore, we are not persuaded that adding a
password protection feature would prevent the user from being associated
with a device through a caller ID or otherwise change the principle of
operation of Rosenbaum.
Accordingly, we sustain the § 103 rejection of claim 1, as well as the
rejections of claims 2—12 and 25—28 not separately argued. See App. Br.
10-11.
DECISION
The rejection of claims 1—12 and 25—28 is affirmed.
No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with
this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a)(l)(iv).
AFFIRMED
5