Ex Parte Petryna

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Jan 8, 2013

09940783 (P.T.A.B. Jan. 8, 2013)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
____________

BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
____________

Ex parte BRIAN J. PETRYNA
____________

Appeal 2011-011142
Application 09/940,783
Technology Center 2400
____________

Before CARL W. WHITEHEAD, JR., ERIC S. FRAHM, and
ANDREW J. DILLON, Administrative Patent Judges.

WHITEHEAD, JR., Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL
Appeal 2011-011142
Application 09/940,783

2
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Appellant is appealing claims 1-21. Appeal Brief 3. We have
jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b) (2012).
We affirm.

Introduction
The invention is directed to “a system for automatically initiating a
subsequent telephone call over a computer network from a second caller to a
first caller” (claim 1, elements omitted). Appeal Brief 3.

Illustrative Claim
1. A system for automatically initiating a subsequent
telephone call over a computer network from a second caller to
a first caller, comprising:

an address interceptor, associated with a station of a
circuit-switched telephone network, that receives calling
number identification signals of said first caller from a first
telephone call from said first caller to said second caller over
said circuit-switched telephone network and extracts from said
calling number identification signals a destination address of
said first caller for said subsequent telephone call from said
second caller to said first caller; and

a network call initiator, coupled to said address
interceptor and associated with a computer network terminal,
that employs said destination address of said first caller to
automatically initiate said subsequent telephone call to said
destination address via said computer network terminal.

Appeal 2011-011142
Application 09/940,783

3
Rejection on Appeal
Claims 1-21 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. §103(a) as being
unpatentable over Scott (U.S. Patent Number 6,760,324 B1; issued July 6,
2004) and Williams (U.S. Patent Number 6,192,045 B1; issued February 20,
2001). Answer 5-9.

ANALYSIS
We have reviewed the Examiner’s rejection in light of Appellant’s
arguments that the Examiner has erred. We disagree with Appellant’s
conclusions. We concur with the findings and reasons set forth by the
Examiner in the action from which this appeal is taken and the reasons set
forth by the Examiner in the Answer in response to Appellant’s Appeal
Brief.
Appellant argues that:
[W]hile the cited portions of Scott relied upon by the
Examiner may teach the claimed first call from a first
caller to a second caller, the cited portions of Scott do
NOT teach initiating a subsequent telephone call from the
second caller back to the first caller via a computer
network as presently claimed.
Appeal Brief 11.
However, the Examiner finds that Scott discloses the claimed
element because:
Examiner interpreted “automatically initiating a
telephone call over a computer network” as “allows traffic
originating on a circuit-switched network to be carried
over a packet-switched network”; SEE Scott et al. col. 6,
lines 24 - 37, Abstract, lines 1 - 6; Fig. 2, elements 202,
205, 207, 210, 215, 220, 205,291, wherein Fig. 2 shows
Appeal 2011-011142
Application 09/940,783

4
and indicates clearly that calls can be made any-to-any,
that is, calls can be made from element 201 to element 202
in element 205 PSTN i.e., Public Switched Telephone
Network] network, or element 201 in network 205 to
element 291/292 in 205 PSTN network via element 215 IP
i.e., Interact Protocol] network which is interpreted as
computer network or packet-switched network; or calls
can be made from element 291/292 in network 205 to
element 201/202 in 205 PSTN network via element 215 IP
network, etc., element 201/202 can be interpreted as first
caller and element 291/292 can be interpreted as second
caller/callee or vice versa. Reference Scott et al. disclose
all the claimed subject matters as in claim 1, please refer
to item (9) Grounds of Rejection.
Answer 16-17.
Appellants have the burden on appeal to the Board to demonstrate
error in the Examiner’s position. See In re Kahn, 441 F.3d 977, 985-86
(Fed. Cir. 2006) (“On appeal to the Board, an applicant can overcome a
rejection [under § 103] by showing insufficient evidence of prima facie
obviousness or by rebutting the prima facie case with evidence of secondary
indicia of nonobviousness.”) (quoting In re Rouffet, 149 F.3d 1350, 1355
(Fed. Cir. 1998)).
The Examiner’s direct findings are not disputed by Appellant and
merely stating that Scott fails to teach the claimed limitation is not sufficient
to convince us of Examiner’s error.
Therefore, we sustain the Examiner’s rejection of claim 1 because of
the reasons stated above. We also sustain the Examiner’s rejection of claims
2-21, not separately argued on their merits, for the reasons stated above.

Appeal 2011-011142
Application 09/940,783

5
DECISION
The rejection of claims 1-21 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). See 37
C.F.R. § 41.50(f).

AFFIRMED

llw