Ex Parte Cope et al

Patent Trial and Appeal BoardMay 31, 2013

11482699 (P.T.A.B. May. 31, 2013)

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. 11/482,699 07/06/2006 Warren B. Cope 1815a 6180 28004 7590 05/31/2013 SPRINT 6391 SPRINT PARKWAY KSOPHT0101-Z2100 OVERLAND PARK, KS 66251-2100 EXAMINER AL AUBAIDI, RASHA S ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 2652 MAIL DATE DELIVERY MODE 05/31/2013 PAPER 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. PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07) UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE _____________ BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD _____________ Ex parte WARREN B. COPE and DANIEL CHARLES SBISA _____________ Appeal 2010-009757 Application 11/482,699 Technology Center 2600 ______________ Before JEAN R. HOMERE, DAVID M. KOHUT, and MIRIAM L. QUINN, Administrative Patent Judges. KOHUT, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL Appeal 2010-009757 Application 11/482,699 2 This is a decision on appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) of the Final Rejection of claims 1-20. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). We affirm the Examiner’s rejection of these claims. INVENTION The invention is directed to a system and method for providing caller identification on a per-call basis, as specified by the caller. Spec. 3, ll. 17-19. Claim 1 is representative of the invention and is reproduced below: 1. A method of operating a communication system to provide caller identification, the method comprising: storing in a data structure a plurality of codes in association with a plurality of caller numbers wherein each caller number of the plurality of caller numbers is associated with a different one of a plurality of clients; receiving a first call request for a call wherein the first call request includes a called number and one of the codes appended to the called number and wherein the call is initiated by an individual on behalf of one of the plurality of clients; translating the one code into one of the caller numbers using the data structure; and transferring a second call request for the call including the one caller number. REFERENCES Rhodes US 6,343,120 B1 Jan. 29, 2002 Campbell US 2006/0165066 A1 Jul. 27, 2006 (filed Apr. 6, 2006) Appeal 2010-009757 Application 11/482,699 3 REJECTIONS AT ISSUE Claims 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Rhodes and Campbell. Ans. 3-6. ISSUES Did the Examiner err in finding that the combination of Rhodes and Campbell teaches or suggests “each caller number associated with a different one of a plurality of clients,” as recited in claim 1 and similarly recited in independent claims 10, and 17? Did the Examiner err in finding that the combination of Rhodes and Campbell teaches or suggests “receiving a first call request for a call wherein the call is initiated by an individual on behalf of one of the plurality of clients,” as recited in claim 1 and similarly recited in independent claims 10, and 17? Appeal 2010-009757 Application 11/482,699 4 ANALYSIS1 Appellants initially argue that the combination of Rhodes and Campbell fails to teach or suggest “a plurality of codes in association with a plurality of caller numbers wherein each caller number of the plurality of caller numbers is associated with a different one of a plurality of clients,” as recited independent claim 1. The Examiner finds that Rhodes teaches a system wherein a call can be placed with indicators or codes that tell the system what number or name to display to a called party. Ans. 6-7. Additionally, the Examiner finds that Campbell teaches that it is well-known that agents can make a call to a plurality of customers. Ans. 4. Thus, the Examiner finds that it is the combination of Campbell with Rhodes that teaches associating a plurality of codes with a plurality of numbers and a plurality of clients. Ans. 3-4. We agree. Appellants argue that Rhodes only teaches associating codes with a plurality of identification fields and not a plurality of clients. App. Br. 6-7; Reply Br. 2. However, the Examiner finds (Ans. 3-4) that the combination of Rhodes with Campbell, not solely the Rhodes reference, teaches the disputed limitation. We agree with the Examiner’s conclusion (Ans. 4) that it would have been obvious to use Campbell’s teaching of one agent calling a plurality of customers with Rhodes’ teaching of associating a number to a particular code or indicator. The Examiner’s conclusion follows from a combination of familiar elements according to known methods that yield predictable results. See KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 406 (2007). Appellants additionally contend that the combination of Rhodes and Campbell fails to teach or suggest “receiving a first call request wherein the call is 1 We select claim 1 as representative of the group of claims comprising claims 1-20 as Appellants have not argued any of the other claims with particularity. 37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(1)(vii). Appeal 2010-009757 Application 11/482,699 5 initiated by an individual on behalf of one of the plurality of clients,” as required by claim 1. App. Br. 7-8. Appellants’ arguments are similar to those presented above. As such, we agree with the Examiner for the same reason as discussed supra. In the Reply Brief, Appellants also contend that Rhodes fails to teach “translating the one code into one of the caller numbers using the data structure,” as required by independent claim 1, because Rhodes translates the caller number and a status indicator into identification information (e.g. public name or alias name) and not a caller number. Reply Br. 2-3 (citing Rhodes 4:26-60 (emphasis omitted)). This argument was not provided prior to the Reply Brief, is not timely presented, and is therefore not properly before us. See Ex parte Borden, 93 USPQ2d 1473, 1474 (BPAI 2010) (Informative) (“the reply brief [is not] an opportunity to make arguments that could have been made in the principal brief on appeal to rebut the Examiner’s rejections, but were not.”). Even if we considered this argument, it would not be persuasive because , as advanced by the Examiner, Rhodes explicitly states that “information stored in the alias information field need not be limited to name information,” but can include alternative phone numbers associated with the caller. See Rhodes 4:61-67 and 5:17-31. We are satisfied that the cited disclosure of Rhodes teaches the disputed limitation. Therefore, for the reasons stated supra, we sustain the Examiner’s rejection of claims 1-20. Appeal 2010-009757 Application 11/482,699 6 CONCLUSION The Examiner did not err in finding that the combination of Rhodes and Campbell teaches or suggests “each caller number associated with a different one of a plurality of clients,” as recited in claim 1 and similarly recited in independent claims 10, and 17. The Examiner did not err in finding that the combination of Rhodes and Campbell teaches or suggests “receiving a first call request for a call wherein the call is initiated by an individual on behalf of one of the plurality of clients,” as recited in claim 1 and similarly recited in independent claims 10, and 17. SUMMARY The Examiner’s decision to reject claims 1-20 is affirmed. 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). AFFIRMED ke