Ex Parte Creamer et al

Patent Trial and Appeal BoardSep 24, 2012

10852910 (P.T.A.B. Sep. 24, 2012)

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. 10/852,910 05/25/2004 Thomas E. Creamer BOC920040012US1 (034) 5411 46322 7590 09/24/2012 CAREY, RODRIGUEZ, GREENBERG & O''KEEFE, LLP STEVEN M. GREENBERG 950 PENINSULA CORPORATE CIRCLE SUITE 2022 BOCA RATON, FL 33487 EXAMINER NGUYEN, KHAI N ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 2614 MAIL DATE DELIVERY MODE 09/24/2012 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 THOMAS E. CREAMER, PEEYUSH JAISWAL, and VICTOR S. MOORE ____________________ Appeal 2010-005931 Application 10/852,910 Technology Center 2600 ____________________ Before ERIC S. FRAHM, KALYAN K. DESHPANDE, and LARRY J. HUME, Administrative Patent Judges. DESHPANDE, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL Appeal 2010-005931 Application 10/852,910 2 STATEMENT OF CASE1 The Appellants seek review under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) of a final rejection of claims 1-4, the only claims pending in the application on appeal. We have jurisdiction over the appeal pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). Claims 5-12 have been cancelled. App. Br. 2. We AFFIRM. The Appellants invented a method for providing location relevant dictionary assistance services in a public switched telephone network (PSTN). Specification ¶ [0001]. An understanding of the invention can be derived from a reading of exemplary claim 1, which is reproduced below [bracketed matter and some paragraphing added]: 1. A method for providing location relevant directory assistance in a public switched telephone network (PSTN), the method comprising the steps of: [1] receiving a directory assistance request from a calling party over the PSTN; [2] retrieving a call address for said calling party from the PSTN as stored in the PSTN; [3] identifying location relevant directory information based upon said retrieved address; and [4] responding to said directory assistance request using said identified location relevant directory information. REFERENCES The Examiner relies on the following prior art: 1 Our decision will make reference to the Appellants’ Appeal Brief (“App. Br.,” filed May 18, 2009) and Reply Brief (“Reply Br.,” filed Dec. 7, 2009), and the Examiner’s Answer (“Ans.,” mailed Oct. 7, 2009), and Final Rejection (“Final Rej.,” mailed Dec. 16, 2008). Appeal 2010-005931 Application 10/852,910 3 Srinivasan US 5,724,412 Mar. 3, 1998 Bansal Akhteruzzaman Urban US 2002/0099720 A1 US 2003/0231755 A1 US 2004/0209640 A1 Jul. 25, 2002 Dec. 18, 2003 Oct. 21, 2004 REJECTIONS Claims 1 and 2 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. §103(a) as being unpatentable over Akhteruzzaman and Urban. Claim 3 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. §103(a) as being unpatentable over Akhteruzzaman, Urban, and Bansal. Claim 4 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. §103(a) as being unpatentable over Akhteruzzaman, Urban, and Srinivasan. ISSUE The issue of whether the Examiner erred turns on whether the combination of the cited prior art teaches or suggests “retrieving a call address for said calling party from the PSTN as stored in the PSTN.” ANALYSIS We have reviewed the Examiner’s rejections in light of the Appellants’ contentions that the Examiner has erred. We disagree with the Appellants’ conclusions. 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 the Appellants’ Appeal Brief. We concur with the conclusion reached by the Examiner. We highlight the following arguments for emphasis. Appeal 2010-005931 Application 10/852,910 4 Claims 1 and 2 rejected under 35 U.S.C. §103(a) as being unpatentable over Akhteruzzaman and Urban The Appellants contend that the combination of Akhteruzzaman and Urban fails to teach or suggest “retrieving a call address for said calling party from the PSTN as stored in the PSTN” (emphasis in original). App. Br. 3-9 and Reply Br. 1-5. The Appellants specifically argue that Urban discloses the call address is retrieved through the PSTN as stored in either a Caller ID Messaging Device or a calling party’s communication device, which are external to the PSTN. App. Br. 8. We disagree with the Appellants. The Examiner found that the limitation “as stored in the PSTN” encompasses any storage device or memory that is connected to the PSTN. Ans. 11-13. The Examiner further found that both Akhteruzzaman and Urban disclose this limitation as constructed. Id. Akhteruzzaman describes caller data is stored in the directory listing part of a database, where the database is accessed by a conventional directory assistance system that is connected to the PSTN. Ans. 11-12 (citing Akhteruzzaman ¶¶ [0009], [0010], and [0013] and Fig. 1). That is, since the database, which includes caller data, is connected to the PSTN, the Examiner found that Akhteruzzaman describes the call address is retrieved from the PSTN as stored in the PSTN. Urban describes that a caller ID messaging signal may be generated by a caller ID messaging device and/or by interactions with the PSTN. Ans. 5-6 and 12-13 (citing Urban ¶¶ [0037] and [0048] and Figs. 7-9). Urban’s caller ID messaging data server accesses a database of caller ID messaging profiles, where the database and caller ID messaging data server is part of Appeal 2010-005931 Application 10/852,910 5 the PSTN. Ans. 13 (citing Urban Figs. 7-9). That is, Urban illustrates that the server and database are components of the PSTN. Urban Figs. 7-9. As such, we agree with the Examiner that the combination of Akhteruzzaman and Urban teaches or suggests “retrieving a call address for said calling party from the PSTN as stored in the PSTN.” Accordingly, we sustain the Examiner’s rejection of claims 1-2. Claim 3 rejected under 35 U.S.C. §103(a) as being unpatentable over Akhteruzzaman, Urban, and Bansal The Appellants contend that the Examiner erred in rejecting claim 3 for the same reasons set forth in support of claims 1-2. App. Br. 9. We disagree with the Appellants. The Appellants’ arguments in support of claims 1-2 were not found to be persuasive supra and are not persuasive here for the same reasons. Claim 4 rejected under 35 U.S.C. §103(a) as being unpatentable over Akhteruzzaman, Urban, and Srinivasan The Appellants contend that the Examiner erred in rejecting claim 4 for the same reasons set forth in support of claims 1-2. App. Br. 9. We disagree with the Appellants. The Appellants’ arguments in support of claims 1-2 were not found to be persuasive supra and are not persuasive here for the same reasons. CONCLUSIONS The Examiner did not err in rejecting claims 1-4. Appeal 2010-005931 Application 10/852,910 6 DECISION To summarize, our decision is as follows.  The rejection of claims 1-4 is sustained. 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) (2010). AFFIRMED ke