Ex Parte Roberts et al

Patent Trial and Appeal BoardNov 9, 2012

09855804 (P.T.A.B. Nov. 9, 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. 09/855,804 05/16/2001 Linda Ann Roberts BLL0435US 1529 36192 7590 11/09/2012 AT&T Legal Department - CC Attn: Patent Docketing Room 2A-207 One AT&T Way Bedminster, NJ 07921 EXAMINER MATTIS, JASON E ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 2461 MAIL DATE DELIVERY MODE 11/09/2012 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 LINDA ANN ROBERTS and EDWARD MICHAEL SILVER ________________ Appeal 2011-012671 Application 09/855,804 Technology Center 2400 ________________ Before JOSEPH F. RUGGIERO, ANDREW CALDWELL, and JOHN A. EVANS, Administrative Patent Judges. CALDWELL, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL SUMMARY Appellants appeal under 35 U.S.C. §§ 6(b) and 134(a) from the Examiner’s final rejection of claims 1-3, 5-21, 23-27, and 29. Claims 4, 22, and 28 are cancelled. We affirm. Appeal 2011-012671 Application 09/855,804 2 STATEMENT OF CASE Appellants describe the present invention as for alerting a subscriber when a call intended for a telephone line of the subscriber is received from a priority caller. When the call from the priority caller is detected, the present invention can perform one or more priority actions, including ringing a telephone associated with the telephone line with a priority alert signal that is different from a regular ringing tone. Abstract. Independent claim 1 is illustrative of a system according to the invention for routing an incoming call. Claim 1 is shown below with disputed limitations in italics: 1. A system for routing an incoming call from a calling party for a telephone line of a subscriber comprising: a service switching point associated with the telephone line; and a service control point in communication with the service switching point, wherein the service switching point detects the incoming call, the service switching point launches a query comprising a subscriber number to the service control point, wherein when the service control point receives the query and refers to a database storing a subscriber’s number, priority caller information, and at least one instruction from the subscriber to determine whether the calling party is a priority caller, the service control point determining a priority caller in response to a priority code submitted by the priority caller, the priority code being a subscriber generated code provided to a plurality of priority callers, wherein the service control point returns a default response to the service switching point if the calling party is not a priority caller, and wherein the service control point returns a priority response to the service switching point if the calling party is a priority caller, the priority response comprising an action to ring a Appeal 2011-012671 Application 09/855,804 3 telephone associated with the telephone line with an alert signal that is different from a regular ringing tone, forwarding the incoming call to another telephone associated with a second telephone line of the subscriber, forwarding the incoming call to a wireless telephone of the subscriber via a wireless telephone network, and establishing a communication session with a calling party and a computer associated with the subscriber via a computer network. THE REJECTIONS 1. The Examiner rejected claims 1-3, 5-8, 11-18, 21, 23-25, and 29 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Dolan (US 6,477,246 B1; Nov. 5, 2002; filed Mar. 31, 2000) in view of Leung (US 6,005,870; Dec. 21, 1999) and Hoopes (US 6,058,171; May 2, 2000).1 Ans. 5-18. 2. The Examiner rejected claims 9, 10, 19, 20, 26, and 27 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Dolan in view of Leung, Hoopes, and Taylor (US 6,922,411 B1; July 26, 2005; filed Sep. 29, 2000). Ans. 18-19. THE OBVIOUSNESS REJECTION - DOLAN, LEUNG and HOOPES ARGUMENTS The Examiner concludes that Dolan, Leung, and Hoopes collectively teach the invention of claim 1. Ans. 5-17. The Examiner relies upon Dolan for teaching all limitations of the claim except for a “priority caller information including a subscriber generated priority code provided to a plurality of priority callers and submitted by a priority caller” and a “priority response compris[ing] an action to ring a telephone associated with the 1 Throughout this opinion, we refer to the Appeal Brief (App. Br.) filed March 22, 2011, and the Examiner’s Answer (Ans.) mailed May 23, 2011. Appeal 2011-012671 Application 09/855,804 4 telephone line with an alert signal that is different from a regular ringing tone.” Id. at 7. The Examiner relies upon Leung for teaching the former and explains that it would be obvious to combine the teachings of Leung with Dolan. Id. at 14-15. The Examiner then relies upon Hoopes for teaching “a priority response compris[ing] an action to ring a telephone associated with the telephone line with a priority alert signal that is different from a regular ringing tone.” Id. at 16-17. The Examiner explains that it would be obvious to combine a priority response comprising an action to ring a telephone with an alert signal that is different from a regular ring tone and a default response comprising an action to ring a telephone with a regular ring tone, as suggested by Hoopes, with the system of Dolan and Leung. Id. at 17. Appellants argue that it would not have been obvious to include a priority alert ring in the system of Dolan. App. Br. 6-7. Appellants explain that there is no predictable way to combine Dolan and Hoopes since there is no reason to use a priority alert signal in Dolan. Id. at 7. In addition, Appellants assert that the Examiner proposes replacing the audible message of Dolan with the priority ring alert of Hoopes. Id. Appellants argue that the proposed modification is improper because replacing the audible message of Dolan with the priority ring alert of Hoopes would change the principle of operation of Dolan. Id. at 7. ANALYSIS Dolan describes a system for putting control of incoming telephone calls in the hands of subscribers. Abstract. When the priority of an incoming call exceeds a certain level, a called party hears an audible Appeal 2011-012671 Application 09/855,804 5 message from the calling party. Fig. 11. The content of the message allows the called party to decide how to handle the call. Abstract. Leung describes a method for providing a called party with control of an incoming call. See Abstract. A calling party may be prompted during an incoming call for a personal identification number. Col. 5, ll. 38-40. The called party may specify various options for handling the call after the personal identification number has been entered. Fig. 1. One option is to alert or interrupt the called party to the incoming high priority call. See col. 7, ll. 4-15. Hoopes describes a system for producing a unique ring based upon the telephone number of a caller. Col. 1, ll. 4-6. The user may select from several different ring styles, including normal, short, and double short rings. Col. 2, ll. 7-9. Appellants argue that there is no predictable way to combine Dolan and Hoopes since there is no reason to use a priority alert signal in Dolan. App. Br. 7. Appellants explain that a priority ring alert would be redundant and unnecessary in Dolan since callers lacking the requisite priority are not connected to the subscriber. Id. The Examiner, however, explains that a priority ring alert would allow a subscriber to identify the specific priority or specific caller based on the ring type rather than just knowing that a caller is of at least the priority currently being allowed. Ans. 22. Based upon the priority ring alert, a called party would gain useful information that would allow the called party to determine how closely to listen to Dolan’s audible message prior to its start. We therefore disagree with Appellants that a priority ring alert would be redundant and unnecessary. Appeal 2011-012671 Application 09/855,804 6 Appellants also argue that the Examiner erred in concluding that the claims are obvious since combining Hoopes with Dolan would change the principle of operation of Dolan. App. Br. 7. Appellants contend that the Examiner proposes modifying the system of Dolan to replace the audible message of Dolan with the priority ring alert of Hoopes. Id. The Examiner however, does not propose replacing Dolan’s audible message with the priority ring alert of Hoopes. Instead, the Examiner combines, or adds, a priority ring alert to the combination of Dolan and Leung. Ans. 17, 22. Since Appellants’ argument does not address the Examiner’s rationale, we are not persuaded that Appellants have identified error in the rejection. Claims 11-13 also stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being obvious over Dolan, Leung, and Hoopes. Although Appellants nominally argue these claims separately from claims 1-3 and 5-8, Appellants merely identify corresponding language from independent claim 11 and then copy and paste their substantive arguments with respect to claim 1 into the section of the Appeal Brief arguing claims 11-13. App. Br. 8-9. Since we are not persuaded that Appellants have identified error in the rejection of claim 1, we are likewise not persuaded that Appellants have identified error in the rejection of claims 11-13. We therefore sustain the rejection. Claims 14-18 also stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being obvious over Dolan, Leung, and Hoopes. Although Appellants nominally argue these claims separately from claims 1-3 and 5-8, Appellants merely identify corresponding language from independent claim 14 and then copy and paste their substantive arguments with respect to claim 1 into the section of the Appeal Brief arguing claims 14-18. Id. at 9-11. Since we are not persuaded that Appellants have identified error in the rejection of claim 1, Appeal 2011-012671 Application 09/855,804 7 we are likewise not persuaded that Appellants have identified error in the rejection of claims 14-18. We therefore sustain the rejection. Claims 21 and 23-25 also stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being obvious over Dolan, Leung, and Hoopes. Although Appellants nominally argue these claims separately from claims 1-3 and 5-8, Appellants merely identify corresponding language from independent claim 21 and then copy and paste their substantive arguments with respect to claim 1 into the section of the Appeal Brief arguing claims 21 and 23-25. Id. at 11-12. Since we are not persuaded that Appellants have identified error in the rejection of claim 1, we are likewise not persuaded that Appellants have identified error in the rejection of claims 21 and 23-25. We therefore sustain the rejection. Claims 29 also stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being obvious over Dolan, Leung, and Hoopes. Although Appellants nominally argue the claim separately from claims 1-3 and 5-8, Appellants merely identify corresponding language from independent claim 29 and then copy and paste their substantive arguments with respect to claim 1 into the section of the Appeal Brief arguing claim 29. Id. at 12-14. Since we are not persuaded that Appellants have identified error in the rejection of claim 1, we are likewise not persuaded that Appellants have identified error in the rejection of claim 29. We therefore sustain the rejection. THE OBVIOUSNESS REJECTION - DOLAN, LEUNG, HOOPES, and TAYLOR We likewise sustain the Examiner's obviousness rejection of claims 9, 10, 19, 20, 26, and 27 over Dolan, Leung, Hoopes, and Taylor. Appellants have not particularly pointed out errors in the Examiner’s reasoning Appeal 2011-012671 Application 09/855,804 8 regarding the additional teachings of Taylor. Appellants merely state that the claims are allowable for the reasons discussed above with reference to claims 1, 14, and 21. Id. at 14. We therefore sustain the rejection for the reasons given above. CONCLUSION Appellants have not shown that the Examiner erred in rejecting claims 1-3, 5-21, 23-27, and 29 under 35 U.S.C. § 103. DECISION The Examiner’s decision rejecting claims 1-3, 5-21, 23-27, and 29 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). See 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a)(1)(iv) (2010). AFFIRMED babc