Ex Parte Clark et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Jul 19, 2016

11993429 (P.T.A.B. Jul. 19, 2016)

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