David Aldworth

Patent Trials and Appeals BoardJun 8, 2021

2020001306 (P.T.A.B. Jun. 8, 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. 15/719,112 09/28/2017 David Aldworth 17005.0002USC1 4643 23552 7590 06/08/2021 MERCHANT & GOULD P.C. P.O. BOX 2903 MINNEAPOLIS, MN 55402-0903 EXAMINER HO, HUY C ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 2644 NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE 06/08/2021 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): USPTO23552@merchantgould.com PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07) UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE ____________ BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD ____________ Ex parte DAVID ALDWORTH ________________ Appeal 2020-001306 Application 15/719,112 Technology Center 2600 ____________ Before JOHNNY A. KUMAR, NORMAN H. BEAMER, and MATTHEW J. McNEILL, Administrative Patent Judges. McNEILL, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL Appellant appeals under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Examiner’s rejection of claims 21‒34.1 Claims 1‒20 are canceled. See Appeal Br. 18 (Claims App’x). Claims 35‒38 have been indicated as allowable. Ans. 3. Accordingly, claims 35‒38 are not before us on appeal. 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 David Aldworth as the real party in interest. Appeal Br. 3. Appeal 2020-001306 Application 15/719,112 2 STATEMENT OF THE CASE Introduction Appellant’s application relates to toll-free telephone routing systems. Spec. ¶¶ 2‒10. In particular, Appellant’s application describes routing toll- free phone calls and text messages to reduce the number of hand-offs and ultimate costs of these calls and messages. Id. ¶ 5. Claims 21 and 30 are illustrative of the appealed subject matter and read as follows: 21. A method for routing calls comprising: receiving a call directed to a toll-free number that is served by a terminating responsible organization (RESPORG); determining a RESPORG identification of the terminating RESPORG; and routing the call to the terminating RESPORG based on the RESPORG identification. 30. A method for routing calls comprising: receiving a call directed to a toll-free number to be routed over a public switched telephone network (PSTN), wherein the toll-free number is served by a terminating responsible organization (RESPORG); querying a database for a RESPORG identification associated with the terminating RESPORG; and based on results of the querying, a) routing the call through the PSTN to the terminating RESPORG using a carrier identification code (CIC); or b) routing the call to the terminating RESPORG via a first network different from the PSTN based in part on the RESPORG identification. The Examiner’s Rejection Claims 21‒38 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 102(a)(2) as anticipated by Breuer (US 6,222,912 B1; Apr. 24, 2001). Final Act. 4‒11. Appeal 2020-001306 Application 15/719,112 3 ANALYSIS We have reviewed the Examiner’s rejections in light of Appellant’s contentions that the Examiner has erred. We disagree with Appellant’s contentions. Except as noted below, we adopt as our own: (1) the findings and reasons set forth by the Examiner in the action from which this appeal is taken and (2) the reasons set forth by the Examiner in the Examiner’s Answer in response to Appellant’s Appeal Brief. We concur with the conclusions reached by the Examiner. We highlight the following additional points. Claims 21‒29 Appellant argues the Examiner errs in rejecting claim 21 because the cited portions of Breuer do not disclose “routing the call to the terminating RESPORG based on the RESPORG identification.” See Appeal Br. 11‒13; Reply Br. 2‒4. In particular, Appellant argues Breuer discloses retrieving RESPORG identification data and generating a call detail record with that data. Appeal Br. 11 (citing Breuer 3:38‒45). Appellant argues Breuer distinguishes between “Resp Org data” and “routing data” and does not disclose routing based on the Resp Org data. Id. Appellant has not persuaded us of Examiner error. Breuer discloses “generating a query for Resp Org data corresponding to the toll-free number for a call received at an SSP.” Breuer 3:39‒41. The query is sent from the SSP to an SCP and Resp Org identification data is extracted from the response to the generated query. Id. at 3:41‒44. This identification data is inserted into a call detail record. Id. at 3:44‒45. This query may be “included in the query for call routing data.” Id. at 3:46. Appeal 2020-001306 Application 15/719,112 4 Appellant has not persuaded us of Examiner error because Appellant’s argument is not commensurate with the scope of the claims. That is, Appellant argues Breuer does not disclose routing the call to the terminating RESPORG based on the RESPORG identification because Breuer discloses incorporating “Resp Org identification data” into a call detail record, and separate discloses “call routing data.” See Appeal Br. 11‒13; Reply Br. 2‒4. However, claim 21 is not so limited as to exclude routing based on “call routing data.” In particular, Claim 21 recites, in relevant part, “determining a RESPORG identification of the terminating RESPORG; and routing the call to the terminating RESPORG based on the RESPORG identification.” Thus, the routing must be “based on the RESPORG identification.” Claim 21 does not specify the exact form of the “RESPORG identification.” However, the Specification suggests that the identification may include, for example, a Carrier Identification Code (CIC). See, e.g., Spec. ¶ 18. An ordinarily skilled artisan would understand Breuer’s “call routing data” to include data such as a Carrier Identification Code. Accordingly, although Breuer may refer to “Resp Org data” and “call routing data” separately, we agree with the Examiner that Breuer discloses routing a call based on “the RESPORG identification” because this claim limitation encompasses either of these data. For these reasons, we sustain the rejection of claim 21. We also sustain the rejection of dependent claims 22‒29, for which Appellant relies on the same arguments. See Appeal Br. 13. Appeal 2020-001306 Application 15/719,112 5 Claims 30‒34 Appellant argues the Examiner errs in rejecting claim 30 for the same reasons as claim 21. Appeal Br. 13. We disagree for the reasons explained above. Appellant also argues the Examiner errs in rejecting claim 30 because Breuer does not disclose “querying a database for a RESPORG identification associated with the terminating RESPORG; and based on results of the querying, . . . routing the call to the terminating RESPORG via a first network different from the PSTN based in part on the RESPORG identification.” Id. at 13‒14; Reply Br. 4‒5. In particular, Appellant argues Breuer discloses routing calls using LEC networks 10 and 30. Reply Br. 5 (citing Breuer 5:7‒8). Appellant argues “Breuer does not distinguish between LEC networks 10 and 30 in a way that can be said to anticipate the claimed distinction between ‘a) routing the call through the PSTN’ and ‘b) routing the call . . . via a first network different from the PSTN.’” Id. Appellant has not persuaded us of Examiner error. The Examiner finds, and we agree, Breuer discloses network components CCS7 and SCP are configured to route a call through first network 10, which is a network that is not a PSTN. Ans. 6 (citing Breuer Fig. 1, 5:7‒16). Appellant’s argument that Breuer fails to distinguish between LEC networks 10 and 30 in a way that can be said to anticipate the distinction between routing through the PSTN and routing through a first network different from the PSTN is not persuasive because claim 30 is a method claim that conditionally claims routing through the PSTN or routing through a first network other than the PSTN. Thus, to anticipate this method, Breuer need only disclose one of these conditional steps. See Ex parte Schulhauser, Appeal 2020-001306 Application 15/719,112 6 Appeal No. 2013-007847, at *9 (PTAB, April 28, 2016) (precedential). And, as the Examiner finds, Breuer discloses routing a call through first network 10, which is a network different from the PSTN. Ans. 6. For these reasons, we sustain the rejection of claim 30. We also sustain the rejection of dependent claims 31‒34, for which Appellant relies on the same arguments. See Appeal Br. 14. CONCLUSION In summary: Claim(s) Rejected 35 U.S.C. § Reference(s)/Basis Affirmed Reversed 21‒34 102(a)(2) Breuer 21‒34 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). See 37 C.F.R. § 41.50(f). AFFIRMED