David Aldworth

Patent Trials and Appeals BoardJun 8, 2021

2020001302 (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. 15/864,542 01/08/2018 David Aldworth 17005.0002USC3 5229 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 2020-001302 Application 15/864,542 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 2020-001302 Application 15/864,542 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 text messages comprising: receiving a text message 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 text message to the terminating RESPORG based on the RESPORG identification. 30. A method for routing text messages comprising: receiving a text message 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 text message through the PSTN to the terminating RESPORG using a carrier identification code (CIC); or b) routing the text message to the terminating RESPORG via a first network different from the PSTN based in part on the RESPORG identification. Appeal 2020-001302 Application 15/864,542 3 The Examiner’s Rejection Claims 21‒38 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 102(a)(2) as anticipated by Sharma (US 2018/0027129 A1; Jan. 25, 2018). Final Act. 4‒12. 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 Sharma do not disclose “determining a RESPORG identification of the terminating RESPORG; and routing the text message to the terminating RESPORG based on the RESPORG identification.” See Appeal Br. 12‒14; Reply Br. 2‒4. Appellant argues the Examiner errs in relying on paragraphs 82‒85 and 461‒465, as well as Figures 10 and 11 of Sharma, as disclosing the disputed limitations. Appeal Br. 12 (citing Final Act. 4‒5). In particular, Appellant argues Sharma discloses a toll-free management platform that routes calls, but Sharma does not disclose routing text messages. Id. (citing Sharma ¶¶ 82‒84). Appellant argues Sharma discloses storing an identifier from an SMS message header portion, but does not disclose “routing the text Appeal 2020-001302 Application 15/864,542 4 message to the terminating RESPORG based on the RESPORG identification,” as claimed. Id. (citing Sharma ¶ 85). Appellant argues paragraphs 461‒465 also do not support the Examiner’s findings because these paragraphs disclose information may be provisioned to industry routing databases for delivering SMS messages, but there is no indication that the routing of text messages occurs based on the RESPORG identification. Id. at 13 (citing Sharma ¶ 463). Appellant argues Figures 10 and 11 merely disclose a routing database without any indication of routing occurring based on the RESPORG identification. Id. (citing Sharma Figs. 10, 11). Appellant has not persuaded us of Examiner error. The Examiner finds, and we agree, Sharma discloses a Toll-Free Management Platform (TFMP) that provides toll-free services, including calls and text messages. Ans. 4 (citing Sharma ¶ 461, Fig. 10). The TFMP provides a Toll-Free Texting and Smart Services Registry (TSS) to support SMS services. Sharma ¶ 461. The TSS manages mapping of toll-free numbers to geographic numbers for the subscribers. Id. The TSS includes a variety of information about the end subscriber, which is the organization responsible for the toll-free number (the claimed “RESPORG”). Id. ¶ 465. In particular, this information includes customer name, responsible organization, service registrar, toll-free number, service enablement date, and status of services. Id. ¶ 466. Appellant’s argument that Sharma does not disclose that SMS messages are routed based on the RESPORG identification is unpersuasive because these disclosures show that the TFMP determines the identity of the terminating RESPORG using the TSS and routes text messages directed to a Appeal 2020-001302 Application 15/864,542 5 toll-free number to the RESPORG based on the identification made using the TSS. See Sharma ¶¶ 461‒465. Accordingly, we agree with the Examiner that Sharma discloses the disputed “determining” and “routing” steps. 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. 14. Claims 30‒34 Appellant argues the Examiner errs in rejecting claim 30 for the same reasons as claim 21. Appeal Br. 14. We disagree for the reasons explained below. Appellant also argues the Examiner errs in rejecting claim 30 because Sharma does not disclose “querying a database for a RESPORG identification associated with the terminating RESPORG; and based on results of the querying, . . . routing the text message to the terminating RESPORG via a first network different from the PSTN based in part on the RESPORG identification.” Id. at 14‒15; Reply Br. 4‒6. In particular, Appellant argues Sharma is silent with respect to details of text message routing, much less doing so based on the results of the querying, as claimed. Appeal Br. 15. Appellant argues Sharma discloses all telephone calls are routed using information provisioned in each PSTN. Id. (citing Sharma ¶ 652). Appellant argues Sharma discloses a unified platform that integrates the PSTN and an IP network. Id. (citing Sharma ¶ 682). Appellant argues these two call routing techniques are not the same as the claimed routing “via a first network different from the PSTN.” Id. Appellant has not persuaded us of Examiner error. The Examiner finds, and we agree, Sharma discloses routing text messages to registrars via Appeal 2020-001302 Application 15/864,542 6 the TFMP. Ans. 7 (citing Sharma ¶ 461, Fig. 10). The Examiner finds, and we agree, the TFMP is a first network that is different than the PSTN. Id. We also note that, as argued by Appellant (Appeal Br. 15), Sharma discloses routing calls (and other services) over both PSTNs and IP networks using a unified platform. See Sharma ¶ 682. Sharma discloses the IP network is a network separate from the PSTN and the IP network may be used to carry toll-free services. See Sharma ¶ 683; see also Fig. 35, ¶¶ 732‒753. 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. 15. CONCLUSION In summary: Claim(s) Rejected 35 U.S.C. § Reference(s)/Basis Affirmed Reversed 21‒34 102(a)(2) Sharma 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