Ex Parte Clark et alDownload PDFPatent Trial and Appeal BoardJul 19, 201611993429 (P.T.A.B. Jul. 19, 2016) Copy Citation UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE 111993,429 12/20/2007 21028 7590 07/21/2016 Gowling WLG (Canada) LLP 160 ELGIN STREET SUITE 2600 OTTA WA, ON KIP 1C3 CANADA FIRST NAMED INVENTOR David William Clark 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 ATTORNEY DOCKET NO. CONFIRMATION NO. 86503-251 7017 EXAMINER KHAN, AFTAB N ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 2454 NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE 07/21/2016 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): Patprosec@gowlingwlg.com PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07) UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD Ex parte DAVID WILLIAM CLARK, JONATHAN ALLAN ARSENAULT, JEFFREY WILLIAM DAWSON and ERIC JOHN WOLF Appeal2015-000682 Application 11/993,429 Technology Center 2400 Before ROBERT E. NAPPI, THU A. DANG and TERRENCE W. McMILLIN, Administrative Patent Judges. NAPPI, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL This is a decision on appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) of the rejection of claims 1 through 6, 8 through 14, 17 through 23, 25 through 33, 35 through 41, 44 through 54, and 56 through 58. We affirm-in-part. INVENTION Appellants' invention relates to a method for use in a media-over- packet communication system. The method includes determining existence of an active communication session involving the client identifiers registered Appeal2015-000682 Application 11/993,429 to a user account identifier and routing the request to a first or second group based upon the determination. Abstract, Specification 3. Claim 1 is illustrative of the invention and reproduced below: 1. A method comprising: rece1vmg a request for a media-over-packet communication session with a user, the request specifying a user account identifier associated with the user, the user account identifier having been used by a third party to originate the request, a plurality of communication client identifiers being registered to the user account identifier; responsive to determining absence of an active communication session involving any of the communication client identifiers registered to said user account identifier: first routing said request to a first set of communication clients using said plurality of communication client identifiers; responsive to determining existence of an active communication session involving a particular communication client identifier from among the communication client identifiers registered to said user account identifier: second routing said request to a second set of communication clients using those of said communication client identifiers other than the particular communication client identifier. REJECTIONS AT ISSUE The Examiner has rejected claims 1, 2, 4, 11, 14, 19, 25, 26, 27, 29, 38, 46, 50, 52, 53, and 56 under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) as anticipated by Bosik (US 2003/0179743 Al; pub. Sep. 25, 2003). Answer 4--12. 1 1 Throughout this opinion we refer to the Appeal Brief filed May 14, 2014, Reply Brief filed October 10, 2014, Final Office Action mailed October 1, 2013 and the Examiner's Answer mailed on August 13, 2014. 2 Appeal2015-000682 Application 11/993,429 The Examiner has rejected claims 3, 5, 6, 8 through 10, 12, 13, 17, 18, 20 through 23, 28, 30 through 33, 35 through 37, 39 through 41, 44, 45, and 47 through 49 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as unpatentable over Bosik and Bantukul (US 2007/0282911 Al; pub. Dec. 6, 2007). Answer 13-23. The Examiner has rejected claim 51 under 3 5 U.S. C. § 103 as unpatentable over Bosik and Kirchhoff (US 7,822,188B1; iss. Oct. 26, 2010). Answer 23-24. The Examiner has rejected claim 54 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as unpatentable over Bosik and Bjorsell (US 2013/0229950 Al; pub. Sep. 5, 2013). Answer 23-24. The Examiner has rejected claims 57 and 58 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as unpatentable over Bosik and Madhavapeddi (US 2011/0255671 Al; pub. Oct. 20, 2011 ). Answer 25-26. ISSUES Appellants argue, on pages 11 through 14 of the Appeal Brief that the Examiner's rejection of independent claims 1, 25 and 26 is in error. The dispositive issue presented by these arguments is whether or not the Examiner erred in finding Bosik teaches routing a request in response to determining absence of an active communication session involving any of the communication client identifiers registered to said user account identifier? Appellants have not presented arguments directed to claim 56, nor have Appellants presented arguments commensurate in scope with claim 56. Thus, Appellants have not identified an error in the rejection of claim 56. 3 Appeal2015-000682 Application 11/993,429 ANALYSIS We have reviewed the Examiner's rejections in light of Appellants' contentions that the Examiner has erred. Further, we have reviewed the Examiner's response to Appellants' arguments. We agree with Appellants' contention that the Examiner erred in rejecting independent clams 1, 25 and 26 under 35 U.S.C. § 102. However, as discussed above, Appellants have not identified error with respect to the rejection of claim 56, and we sustain the Examiner's rejection of claim 56. Appellants argue the Examiner's rejection of claims 1, 25 and 26, relies upon Bosik's alternative call forwarding numbers as being the claimed communication client identifiers and that Bosik does not make a determination that there is an absence of an active communication session for any of these call forwarding numbers. App Br. 13. In response to Appellants' arguments, the Examiner concludes that the claimed "client identifiers" encompass Bosik' s forwarding number, and finds that Bosik teaches checking to see if a call is answered and also checking if the call forwarding number might be busy. Answer 27 and 28 (citing Figures 2 and 4 ofBosik). We disagree with the Examiner's findings and conclusion. In particular, we do not find that the cited portion of Bosik teaches determining an absence of a communication session involving the call forwarding numbers (which Examiner equates to the client identifiers) as a condition to routing a request as claimed. Accordingly, we do not sustain the Examiner's anticipation rejection of claims 1, 2, 4, 11, 14, 19, 25, 26, 27, 29, 38, 46, 50, 52, and 53 which all contain a limitation directed to routing a request in response to determining 4 Appeal2015-000682 Application 11/993,429 absence of an active communication session involving any of the communication client identifiers registered to said user account identifier. The Examiner's rejections of claims 3, 5, 6, 8 through 10, 12, 13, 17, 18, 20 through 23, 28, 30 through 33, 35 through 37, 39 through 41, 44, 45, and 47 through 49, 51, 54, 57, and 58 under 35 U.S.C. § 103, similarly rely upon Bosik teach the limitations of independent claims 1, 25 and 26. Accordingly, we do not sustain the Examiner's rejection of these claims for the same reason as discussed with respect to independent claims 1, 25 and 26. DECISION We affirm the Examiner's rejection of claim 56 under 35 U.S.C. § 103. We reverse the Examiner's rejections of 1 through 6, 8 through 14, 17 through 23, 25 through 33, 35 through 41, 44 through 54, 57, and 58 under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) and 35 U.S.C. § 103. 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-IN-PART 5 Copy with citationCopy as parenthetical citation