International Business Machines Corporation

Patent Trials and Appeals Board

Aug 4, 2021

2020002055 (P.T.A.B. Aug. 4, 2021)

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.
15/353,763 11/17/2016 Scott G. Bowden END920130040US2 8272
11445 7590 08/04/2021
IBM Corporation - Patent Center
1701 North Street
B/256-3
Endicott, NY 13760
EXAMINER
ELAHEE, MD S
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2653
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
08/04/2021 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):
edciplaw@us.ibm.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
____________________
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
____________________
Ex parte SCOTT G. BOWDEN, CHRISTOPHER J. DAWSON, and
SANJEEV KUMAR V. MARIMEKALA
____________________

Appeal 2020-002055
Application 15/353,763
Technology Center 2600
____________________

Before ROBERT E. NAPPI, DAVID M. KOHUT, and
BETH Z. SHAW, Administrative Patent Judges.

KOHUT, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL
Pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 134(a), Appellant1 appeals from the
Examiner’s decision to reject claims 1–6.2 We have jurisdiction under 35
U.S.C. § 6(b).
We AFFIRM.

1 We use the word “Appellant” to refer to “applicant” as defined in 37
C.F.R. § 1.42. Appellant identifies the real party in interest as International
Business Machines Corporation. Appeal Br. 2.
2 Throughout this Decision we refer to the Final Office Action mailed Nov.
1, 2018 (“Final Act.”), the Appeal Brief filed Mar. 20, 2019 (“Appeal Br.”),
the Examiner’s Answer mailed Aug. 12, 2019 (“Ans.”), and the Reply Brief
(“Reply Br.”) filed Jan. 2, 2020.
Appeal 2020-002055
Application 15/353,763

2

INVENTION
The invention relates to “the field of audience attention measurement,
and more specifically to real-time determination of audience attention to a
speaker.” Spec. ¶ 1. The invention measures audience attention using
sensors such as still cameras, video cameras, microphones, motion sensors,
and computing device usage detectors within a room in which a presentation
is being made. Id. at ¶ 12. Claim 1 is representative of the invention and is
reproduced below.
1. A computer system for real-time determination of
attentiveness of an audience in a room to a speaker making a
presentation, the computer system comprising:
one or more computer processors;
one or more computer-readable storage devices;
program instructions stored on the computer-readable
storage media for execution by at least one of the one or more
processors, the program instructions comprising:
program instructions to determine amounts of
attentiveness of the audience within the room over time during
the presentation utilizing sensors located throughout the room;
and
based in part on amounts of attentiveness the audience
over time, program instructions to determine and initiate display
of measures of attentiveness of the audience over the time during
the presentation, to display changes in the measures of
attentiveness of the audience to the speaker during the
presentation.
Appeal Br. 21 (Claims App.)
Appeal 2020-002055
Application 15/353,763

3

REFERENCES
Name Reference Date
Kuhlke US 2008/0320082 A1 Dec. 25, 2008
Ramaswamy US 2013/0205311 A1 Aug. 8, 2013

REJECTIONS3
Claims 1–3, 5, and 6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 102(a)(1) as
anticipated by Kuhlke. Final Act. 5–6.
Claim 4 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over
Kuhlke and Ramaswamy. Final Act. 7.

ANALYSIS
The Examiner finds that Kuhlke discloses each and every limitation of
claims 1–3, 5, and 6. Final Act. 5–6. In particular, the Examiner finds that
Kuhlke discloses “program instructions to determine amounts of
attentiveness of the audience within the room over time during the
presentation utilizing sensors located throughout the room.” Id. at 5 (citing
Kulke, Figs. 1–7, ¶¶ 12, 15, 16, 22, 25, 26, 40–47). The Examiner further
explains that
In paragraph 23, Kuhlke teaches that monitoring
circuitry (e.g., 40, 42) [i.e., sensors] in each of user device 20a,
20b and 20d is used for detecting user inputs and supplies these
inputs to enable the IP meeting server 12 in fig. 1 to receive
monitoring data in the form of detected user interaction inputs
detected by the monitoring circuitry. Based on the received
monitoring data, the meeting server generates attention metrics

3 Claims 1–3, 5–12, 14–16, and 18 were rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 101 as
directed to patent-ineligible subject matter. Final Act. 8–10. However, this
rejection was withdrawn in the Examiner’s Answer, and is no longer
pending on appeal. Ans. 3.
Appeal 2020-002055
Application 15/353,763

4

including an aggregate attention metric identifying the aggregate
focus of attention by all the identified meeting participants (see
fig.2; paragraphs 0024, 0025) and this aggregate focus of
attention is used to determine the relative attention level 54 [i.e.,
amounts of attentiveness] of each of the meeting participants
[i.e., audience] over time during the presentation (see paragraph
0026).
In paragraph 0039, Kuhlke further teaches that a location-
based presence can specify the relative proximity of the
participant 28 in fig.1, relative to the meeting devices 20b or 20c.
The locations-based services also can specify whether a
nonparticipant enters the participant's office, indicating that the
nonparticipant may be interrupting the participant while the
participant is engaged in an instant messaging session or in a
conference call. Thus it is clear that the monitoring circuitry
(e.g., 40, 42) [i.e., sensors] in the participant [i.e., each of user]
device 20b is located within the user's/participant's
office/location [i.e., room] during the presentation utilizing
sensors located within the room.
Ans. 6–7.
Appellant disagrees and argues that “Kuhlke is directed to
‘determining attention level of meeting participants of a web-based rich-
media conference.’” Appeal Br. 12 (citing Kulhke ¶ 1). Because Kuhlke’s
audience is web-based and their attention level is “determined based on
detecting and analyzing interactions between a meeting participant and his
or her user interface devices,” Appellant argues that Kuhlke fails to teach
determining the attentiveness of the “audience within the room . . . utilizing
sensors located throughout the room.” Id. More specifically, Appellant
asserts that Kuhlke’s “use of ‘monitoring circuitry’ in a ‘user interface
device’ of a meeting participant does not support the alleged teaching of
‘program instructions to determine amounts of attentiveness of the audience
Appeal 2020-002055
Application 15/353,763

5

within the room over time during the presentation utilizing sensors located
throughout the room.’” Reply Br. 3.
Appellant’s arguments, however, are not commensurate with the
scope of the claims. Claim 1 requires “program instructions to determine
amounts of attentiveness of the audience within the room . . . utilizing
sensors located throughout the room.” Notably, claim 1 does not recite any
requirements on the claimed audience or room. Instead, claim 1 merely
requires an audience in a room and sensors located in that room. As such,
Appellant’s arguments are unpersuasive because Kuhlke teaches an audience
within a room by disclosing a participant watching a presentation from their
office. Ans. 6–7 (citing Kuhlke ¶ 39). Further, Kuhlke teaches sensors
throughout the audience/participant’s room by disclosing sensors in user
devices 20b and 20c as well as keyboard 40 and mouse 42 sensors. Id.
(citing Kuhlke ¶¶ 23, 39, Fig. 1). Because Kuhlke’s sensors determine
amounts of attentiveness of the audience/participant within their room or
office and because the sensors are located throughout the participant’s room
in their devices, we are not persuaded of Examiner error. Ans. 6–7.
For the reasons explained above, we sustain the rejection of claims 1–
3, 5, and 6. Further, because Appellant does not separately argue claim 4,
we also sustain the rejection of claim 4. See Appeal Br. 18.
Appellant further argues that
The Current Office Action (on page 4) improperly groups
claims 2, 3, and 5 in with the rejection of independent claim 1.
Appellant respectfully asserts that it is clear that the citations of
Kuhlke with respect to independent claim 1 (which constitute a
listing of all of the Figures of Kuhlke in addition to a listing of
paragraphs of Kuhlke, without any analysis of which paragraphs,
or portions of paragraphs, relate to any particular limitations of
Appeal 2020-002055
Application 15/353,763

6

the claim) are not "equally applicable" to the content of claims 2,
3, and 5. Due to the Current Office Action being devoid of
analysis or reasoning behind rejecting claims 2, 3, and 5 as
anticipated by Kuhlke, Appellant cannot reasonably ascertain
how Kuhlke anticipates claims 2, 3, or 5.
Appeal Br. 16–17.
During prosecution, 35 U.S.C. § 132 requires that an Examiner provide
notification to an applicant of the reasons for a rejection with “such
information and references as may be useful in judging of the propriety of
continuing the prosecution of [the] application.” In re Jung, 637 F.3d 1356,
1362 (Fed. Cir. 2011) (quoting Chester v. Miller, 906 F.2d 1574, 1578
(1990)). Here, the Examiner notified Appellants that claims 2, 3 and 5 are
rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 102(a)(1) as anticipated by Kulhke. The
Examiner further provided the specific basis of the rejections via the citation
of specific paragraphs and figures of Kuhlke. Final Act. 5–6 (citing Kuhlke,
Figs. 1–7, ¶¶ 12, 15, 16, 22, 25, 26, 40–47).
We find that the Examiner's rejection satisfies the notice requirement
and accordingly, the burden shifts to Appellant to rebut the Examiner's
prima facie case by distinctly and specifically pointing out the supposed
errors in the Examiner's rejection. However, Appellant has merely alleged
that the Examiner did not meet their burden and has not specifically
identified how Kuhlke fails to teach the elements of claims 2, 3, and 5. See
Appeal Br. 16–18. Accordingly, in the absence of a specific argument
identifying the deficiencies of Kuhlke with respect to claims 2, 3 and 5, we
sustain the Examiner’s rejection. See Ex parte Frye, 94 USPQ2d 1072, 1075
(BPAI 2010) (precedential) (“The panel then reviews the obviousness
rejection for error based upon the issues identified by appellant, and in light
of the arguments and evidence produced thereon.”)).
Appeal 2020-002055
Application 15/353,763

7

CONCLUSION
We affirm the Examiner’s rejection of claims 1–3, 5, 6 under
35 U.S.C. § 102(a)(1).
We affirm the Examiner’s rejection of claim 4 under 35 U.S.C. § 103.
DECISION SUMMARY
In summary:
Claims
Rejected
35 U.S.C.
§
Reference(s)/
Basis
Affirmed Reversed
1–3, 5, 6 102(a)(1) Kuhlke 1–3, 5, 6
4 103 Kuhlke,
Ramaswamy
4
Overall
Outcome
1–6

TIME PERIOD FOR RESPONSE
No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with
this Appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a).
See 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a)(1)(iv).
AFFIRMED