International Business Machines Corporation

Patent Trials and Appeals Board

May 18, 2021

2021000389 (P.T.A.B. May. 18, 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.
15/132,492 04/19/2016 Aaron K. Baughman YOR920150563US1 9256
98841 7590 05/18/2021
Otterstedt, Wallace & Kammer, LLP
P.O. Box 381
Cos Cob, CT 06807-0381
EXAMINER
MINCARELLI, JAN P
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
3627
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
05/18/2021 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):
CTOFFICE@OEKLAW.COM
admin1@oeklaw.com
docket@oeklaw.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
____________________

BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
____________________

Ex parte AARON K. BAUGHMAN,
THOMAS D. ERICKSON, BRIAN P. GAUCHER,
and WENDY A. KELLOGG
__________________

Appeal 2021-000389
Application 15/132,492
Technology Center 3600
____________________

Before ANTON W. FETTING, JOSEPH A. FISCHETTI, and
JAMES P. CALVE, Administrative Patent Judges.

CALVE, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL

STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 134(a), Appellant1 appeals from the decision
of the Examiner to reject claims 1–6, 8–13, and 15–20, which are all of the
pending claims.2 See Appeal Br. 1. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C.
§ 6(b).
We AFFIRM.

1 “Appellant” refers to “applicant” as defined in 37 C.F.R. § 1.42. Appellant
identifies International Business Machines Corporation as the real party in
interest. Appeal Br. 3.
2 Claims 7 and 14 are cancelled. See Final Act. 2.
Appeal 2021-000389
Application 15/132,492

2
CLAIMED SUBJECT MATTER
Claims 1, 8, and 15 are independent. Representative claim 1 recites:
1. A method comprising the steps of:
for a given time period, for each pair of a plurality of
participants in a meeting, determining, by at least one hardware
processor, whether a connection exists between members of said pair
by evaluating one or more of a physical proximity of said pair, a
visual gaze of said pair obtained via one or more image capture
devices, and a text analysis performed on a transcript of directed
speech between said pair, the transcript obtained via one or more
acoustic capture devices, an acoustic front end, an acoustic model, a
language model, and a speech recognizer;
for said given time period, for each pair of said participants for
which a connection exists, determining, by the at least one hardware
processor, a valence of said connection;
for said given time period, creating, by the at least one
hardware processor, a social network depicting said connections and
their valences;
for said given time period, based on said social network,
identifying, by the at least one hardware processor, at least one faction
within said plurality of participants in said meeting, each faction
composed of a subset of said plurality of participants who share a
common viewpoint, each participant of the subset having a same
perspective on at least one particular subject matter;
assessing faction dynamics of said plurality of participants in
said meeting by repeating said steps of determining said connections,
determining said valences, creating said network, and identifying said
at least one faction, for a plurality of additional time periods;
issuing an alert to a user based on the assessed faction
dynamics, the alert comprising displaying a light that indicates a
decline in attention span, excessive disagreement, or a change of
factions; and
responsive to the light display, generating an intervention that
generates a fewer number of factions or a greater number of factions.
Appeal Br. 22 (Claims App.).
Appeal 2021-000389
Application 15/132,492

3
REJECTIONS3
Claims 1–4, 6, 8–11, 13, 15–18, and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103 as unpatentable over Ashour,4 Vijayakumar,5 and Cunnington.6
Claims 5, 12, and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as
unpatentable over Ashour, Vijayakumar, Cunnington, and Byun.7
ANALYSIS
Claims 1–4, 6, 8–11, 13, 15–18, and 20
Rejected Over Ashour, Vijayakumar, and Cunnington
Appellant argues claims 1–4, 6, 8–11, 13, 15–18, and 20 as a group.
See Appeal Br. 14–20. We select claim 1 as representative. 37 C.F.R.
§ 41.37(c)(1)(iv) (2019).
Regarding claim 1, the Examiner finds that Ashour teaches a method
substantially as claimed except for assessing faction dynamics by repeating
the steps, issuing an alert, and generating an intervention. Final Act. 8–11.
The Examiner finds that Vijayakumar repeats method steps to reassess group
dynamics and update results as changes in meeting contexts occur. Id. at 11.
The Examiner determines it would have been obvious to a skilled artisan to
incorporate this feature in Ashour to assess meeting participant connections,
social networks, and group dynamics as a meeting context or topic changes
to reflect the current associations on a current topic as Vijayakumar teaches.
Id. at 11–12 (citing Vijayakumar ¶¶ 15, 27, 37).

3 The Examiner withdrew a rejection of claims 1–6, 8–13, and 15–20 under
35 U.S.C. § 101.
4 US 2011/0131144 A1, published June 2, 2011 (“Ashour”).
5 US 2011/0022967 A1, published January 27, 2011 (“Vijayakumar”).
6 US 2011/0295392 A1, published December 1, 2011 (“Cunnington”).
7 US 2011/0292162 A1, published December 1, 2011 (“Byun”).
Appeal 2021-000389
Application 15/132,492

4
The Examiner cites Cunnington for issuing an alert by adjusting the
display of lighting, sound, and other stimuli when disagreement, confusion,
boredom, or disengagement is detected in audience participants/factions, and
in response to a lighting display, generating an intervention that generates a
fewer or greater number of factions by performing behavior modification,
altering the meeting format to break into sub-groups, or changing the topic
analysis. Final Act. 12–13 (citing Cunnington ¶¶ 25, 33, 51). The Examiner
determines that it would have been obvious to a skilled artisan to incorporate
these features of Cunnington into the method of Ashour and Vijayakumar to
alert a speaker or meeting participants of the need to intervene and change
factions during teleconferences, seminars, or other settings where a speaker
and other participants cannot accurately interpret the current disposition of
meeting participants so that such impairments can be overcome to increase
the effectiveness of the meeting communications. Id. at 13.
Appellant argues that Cunnington fails to teach or suggest responsive
to the light display, generating an intervention that generates a fewer number
or a greater number of factions as claimed. Appeal Br. 15–16; Reply Br. 3–
5. Appellant argues that paragraph 25 of Cunnington describes behavior
modification by changing environmental conditions rather than generating a
fewer or greater number of factions as claimed. Reply Br. 5. Appellant also
asserts that paragraph 51 describes control of environmental conditions to
affect the reactions or disposition of the audience and stimulate or influence
the audience, but it does not suggest controlling an environmental condition
to generate an intervention that generates fewer or greater numbers of the
factions responsive to a light display as claimed. Reply Br. 5. We are not
persuaded by these arguments for the following reasons.
Appeal 2021-000389
Application 15/132,492

5
A “faction” is a “subgroup or coalition” of “one or more members of
the Group who are allied with one another, and who are distinct from one or
more other members of the Group.” Spec. 3:19–21 (“Factions may shift
over time”). A faction can be a “set of people in agreement” (id. at 8:15–16)
or “a set of people who are in mutual agreement and in disagreement with
other factions” (id. at 22:22–23).
The Examiner correctly finds that Cunnington issues alerts in the form
of displaying lighting adjustments when the system detects disagreement,
confusion, boredom, or disengagement in an audience. Cunnington ¶¶ 25,
33, 51; Ans. 12–13. Cunnington’s alerts display lighting changes to indicate
declines in attention span or excessive disagreement as claimed. See Spec.
21:1–5 (lighting indicates declines in attention span, excessive disagreement,
or faction creation as feedback to a host or room); Cunnington ¶¶ 25, 33, 51.
The Examiner correctly finds that Cunnington intervenes as lighting
adjustments indicate declines in attention spans, disagreement, or a change
of factions. Ans. 4. Interventions include behavior modification to reduce
disagreement, boredom, or disengagement in an audience. Cunnington ¶ 25.
Thus, behavior modifications reduce factions resulting from disagreement or
disengagement. Cunnington divides audiences into sub-groups and changes
topic analysis. Id. ¶ 51. These interventions change the audience factions
after the lighting changes. Id. ¶¶ 50, 51; Spec. 3:19–21, 8:1–16, 22:22–23.
The Specification describes interventions as encouraging temporary factions
to explore different positions and encouraging activities such as time-outs,
topic changes, coffee breaks, and trust-building exercises to change factions
that appear to have hardened. Spec. 24:25–26:2. Cunnington’s changes in
topic analysis similarly attempt to decrease or alter factions as claimed.
Appeal 2021-000389
Application 15/132,492

6
Breaking audiences into sub-groups as Cunnington teaches (id. ¶ 51)
increases the number of factions as claimed. The Specification defines a
faction as a subgroup that is distinct from other members of a group (Spec.
3:19–21) and an intervention as the encouragement of temporary factions to
explore different positions (id. 24:25–25:2). Changing topic analysis and
forming sub-groups of meeting participants in response to a lighting alert
(Cunnington ¶¶ 50, 51) similarly changes the factions as claimed where the
Specification describes interventions as including “topic changes” (Spec.
24:29–25:2) and factions as sub-groups of a larger group (id. 3:19–21).
Appellant argues that Ashour’s failure to teach “assessing faction
dynamics of said plurality of participants in said meeting by repeating said
steps” is not a case of mere duplication. Appeal Br. 16. This argument
misperceives the rejection, which relies on Vijayakumar to teach repeating
method steps to determine group dynamics in order to update the results
dynamically “when a change in meeting context is detected.” Final Act. 11.
The Examiner is not duplicating the steps of Ashour. See Ans. 4–5.
Appellant further contends that while Vijayakumar may repeat steps
to rate participants by expertise, Vijayakumar does not assess the faction
dynamics of meeting participants where each faction is composed of a subset
of participants who share a common viewpoint and share a perspective on a
particular subject. Appeal Br. 16. This argument is not persuasive for two
reasons. First, the Examiner relies on Ashour to teach identifying at least
one faction of the plurality of participants in a meeting where each faction is
composed of a subset of the participants who share a common viewpoint and
have the same perspective on a particular subject matter. Final Act. 10; see
Ans. 5 (Ashour is relied on to teach determination of faction dynamics).
Appeal 2021-000389
Application 15/132,492

7
Second, Vijayakumar is not as limited in its teachings. Vijayakumar
calculates degrees of association of meeting participants based on their level
of expert knowledge (Vijayakumar ¶ 15) and their personal and professional
relationships (id. ¶ 27). Determining relationships assesses the connections
and faction dynamics of participants as claimed. See Spec. 3:19–21, 8:1–15.
Vijayakumar regenerates associations as meeting topics change to
indicate changes in participants’ associations, connections, and factions as
meeting topics change and their views may differ on different topics to place
them in different factions for different topics. Vijayakumar ¶¶ 15, 27. Thus,
regenerated degrees of association reflect factions on a current topic and
provide insights into participants’ views (agreement) on each topic. Id. ¶ 27.
The Summary of Claimed Subject Matter cites page 7, line 10 to page
8, line 3 as supporting participant common viewpoints and perspectives on
subject matter. Supp. Appeal Brief 2, filed May 7, 2020.8 This disclosure
merely describes identifying meeting participants through video and speaker
recognition and monitoring their gazes, pupil dilation, interactional distance,
body orientation, position relative to the group, gestures, interpersonal
distance, and interactional synchrony. Spec. 7:10–8:3. No description is
provided for identifying factions by common viewpoint or perspective on a
particular subject matter. When this limitation is interpreted in light of what
is described in the Specification, it encompasses the definition of “faction”
as members who are allied with one another, in agreement, and distinct from
other members of a group (Spec. 3:19–21, 22:22–23), and such factions may
shift over time (id. at 3:21). Vijayakumar measures such member factions
by their connections and their faction shifts over time as topics change.

8 All other citations to Appeal Brief cite the Appeal Brief filed April 2, 2020.
Appeal 2021-000389
Application 15/132,492

8
The Examiner correctly finds that Vijayakumar reassesses the faction
dynamics of meeting participants who are allied with one another based on
their degrees of association and personal and professional relationships. See
Vijayakumar ¶¶ 15, 27; Ans. 5. Vijayakumar also teaches that such faction
dynamics change based on meeting content and context such that factional
relationships must be reassessed and updated as the context of the meeting
changes. A skilled artisan would understand that faction changes due to
topic changes result from participant viewpoints and perspectives on subject
matter as claimed. Vijayakumar ¶¶ 15, 27. The Examiner correctly reasons
that a skilled artisan would have been motivated by this teaching to modify
Ashour to reassess factions for similar benefits by repeating Ashour’s steps
of assessing personal connections and social networks of participants at
other times to account for changes in the meeting context that may impact on
the measured connections and networks as Vijayakumar teaches. Final Act.
11–12; Ans. 5–6; KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 417 (2007).
Appellant presents a similar argument that Vijayakumar associates
meeting participants based on personal and professional relationships and
expertise in the present context but such associations are not based on a
common viewpoint or perspective on particular subject matter as claimed.
Appeal Br. 17–18. As discussed above, this argument attacks the references
individually where the Examiner relies on their combined teachings. Ans. 6.
Moreover, when interpreted in light of the Specification, Vijayakumar’s
reassessment of participants’ factions based on personal and professional
relationships and expertise as topics change encompasses their viewpoints
and perspectives that change their factions for different topics. Vijayakumar
¶¶ 15, 27; see Spec. 3:19–21 (groups allied as factions change with topic).
Appeal 2021-000389
Application 15/132,492

9
Finally, Appellant challenges the Examiner’s finding that Ashour
analyzes whether participants agree or disagree on a subject as a way to
detect connections between participants. Appeal Br. 18–19; Reply Br. 10.
Appellant argues that this analytics is not used to cluster participants into
sub-groups. Appeal Br. 19.
Ashour focuses on calculating the connection strengths between two
participants. One of the ways that Ashour determines a connection strength
between two or more participants is the extent to which participants agree or
disagree on a particular subject. Ashour ¶ 50. Participants who share the
same view on a subject are determined to have a stronger connection to one
another. Id. Ashour teaches that participants in a sub-activity are clustered
into sub-groups that indicate their connection strengths. Id. ¶¶ 32, 44.
Ashour identifies factions (sub-groups) of participants based on their
connection strength, and measures connection strength based on participant
agreement/disagreement on a subject as claimed. Indeed, the Specification
describes a faction as a set of people in agreement and groups that are allied
with one another and distinct from other members. Spec. 3:19–20, 8:1–16.
The Examiner reasonably determines that members who agree on a subject
share the same viewpoint as claimed, and thus form a faction. Furthermore,
claim 1 does not require clustering the individuals into a sub-group. Ans. 6.
Even so, Ashour clusters participants into sub-groups based on the strength
of their connections as evidenced by their participation in sub-activities as
detected by speech analysis and topic detection. Ashour ¶¶ 31, 32, 44. The
Examiner correctly finds that Ashour measures participants’ agreement on a
topic to determine the strength of their connections (id. ¶ 50) and identifies
connection strengths based on sub-group factions (id. ¶¶ 31, 32, 44).
Appeal 2021-000389
Application 15/132,492

10
The Specification confirms that factions includes participants who
agree on a subject. “A distinction should be made between members of a
faction (i.e. set of people in agreement), and a set of people in proximity.”
Spec. 8:15–16. Thus, interactional synchrony can be used as evidence for
agreement and positive connections. Id. at 8:1–3. Ashour forms sub-groups
of participants based on the strength of their connections as evidenced by
their agreement or disagreement on a particular subject or their participation
in a clustered sub-activity. Ashour ¶¶ 32, 44, 50.
Accordingly, we sustain the rejection of claim 1 and claims 2–4, 6, 8–
11, 13, 15–18, and 20, which fall with claim 1.
Claims 5, 12, and 19
Rejected Over Ashour, Vijayakumar, Cunnington, and Byun
Appellant argues claims 5, 12, and 19 are patentable because they
depend from claims 1, 8, and 15. Appeal Br. 20. Because we sustain the
rejection of claims 1, 8, and 15, this argument is not persuasive and we also
sustain the rejection of claims 5, 12, and 19.
CONCLUSION
In summary:
Claim(s)
Rejected
35
U.S.C. §  
Reference(s)/
Basis
Affirmed Reversed
1–4, 6, 8–11,
13, 15–18, 20
103 Ashour,
Vijayakumar,
Cunnington
1–4, 6, 8–
11, 13, 15–
18, 20

5, 12, 19 103 Ashour,
Vijayakumar,
Cunnington, Byun
5, 12, 19
Overall
Outcome
1–6, 8–13,
15–20

Appeal 2021-000389
Application 15/132,492

11
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