Ex Parte Sylvain

Patent Trial and Appeal BoardAug 20, 2013

10970590 (P.T.A.B. Aug. 20, 2013)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE __________ BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD __________ Ex parte DANY SYLVAIN1 __________ Appeal 2011-005244 Application 10/970,590 Technology Center 2600 __________ Before TONI R. SCHEINER, ERIC GRIMES, and FRANCISCO C. PRATS, Administrative Patent Judges. GRIMES, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL This is an appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134 involving claims to a method and system for routing an incoming telephone call, which have been rejected for obviousness. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). We reverse. 1 Appellant identifies the Real Party in Interest as Nortel Networks Limited (Appeal Br. 1). Appeal 2011-005244 Application 10/970,590 2 STATEMENT OF THE CASE Claims 1-6, 8, 10, 11, 13, 15-26, 28, 30-33, and 35-44 are on appeal. Claim 1 is illustrative and reads as follows: 1. A method for routing incoming calls comprising: a) associating a plurality of telephony devices with at least one zone; b) detecting an incoming call intended for one of the plurality of telephony devices; c) determining, in response to detecting the incoming call, that the one of the plurality of telephony devices is associated with the at least one zone; d) determining, in response to the determination that the one of the plurality of telephony devices is associated with the at least one zone, if a user associated with the plurality of telephony devices is registered within the at least one zone; and e) initiating an alert for the incoming call based on a call processing rule associated with the at least one zone. Claim 21, the only other independent claim on appeal, is directed to a system comprising (a) a communication interface and (b) a control system associated with the communication interface and adapted to carry out the same steps recited in claim 1 (Appeal Br. 15 (Claims Appendix)). The claims stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as follows: • Claims 1-3, 8, 10, 11, 13, 15-18, 21-23, 28, 30-33, 35-38, and 41-44 based on Goss,2 Pearson,3 and Lei4 (Answer 3-4); • Claims 4-6 and 24-26 based on Goss, Pearson, Lei, and Dougherty5 (Answer 10); and 2 Goss, US 6,320,534 B1, issued Nov. 20, 2001. 3 Pearson et al., US 2005/0063528 A1, published Mar. 24, 2005. 4 Lei et al., US 2004/0203664 A1, published Oct. 14, 2004. Appeal 2011-005244 Application 10/970,590 3 • Claims 19, 20, 39, and 40 based on Goss, Pearson, Lei, and Kent6 (Answer 12). Each of the rejections on appeal depends on the combination of Goss, Pearson, and Lei. The Examiner finds that Goss discloses a method meeting most of the limitations of claim 1, including “associating a plurality of telephony devices with a zone,” “detecting an incoming call intended for one of the plurality of telephony devices,” and “determining, in response to detecting the incoming call, that the one of the plurality of telephony devices is associated with the at least one zone” (Answer 4). Appellant argues that the “claimed invention first determines a zone based on the telephony device to which the call is directed,” while “the prior art references cited by the Patent Office disclose methods and systems that first find a location of a user, and then determine a phone based on the location of the user” (Appeal Br. 8). That is, while claim 1 requires “detecting an incoming call intended for one of the plurality of telephony devices[,]” . . . the referenced portions of Goss disclose that an incoming phone call is directed to a “reach” number that is not associated with any phone. The “reach” number is merely a means of triggering a search for a user. (Id. at 9.) We agree with Appellant that the Examiner has not adequately shown that a person of ordinary skill in the art would have understood Goss’ method to include the disputed steps of claim 1. The Specification describes 5 Dougherty et al., US 6,141,556, issued Oct. 31, 2000. 6 Kent, Jr. et al., US 2005/0153699 A1, published July 14, 2005. Appeal 2011-005244 Application 10/970,590 4 a method of automatically routing a telephone call to a specific telephony device in a given location, based on a user’s preference (Spec. 1-2, ¶¶ 5-6). Thus, if the user has multiple telephony devices associated with a given location and the user is at that location, an incoming call may be routed to one or more of the telephony devices. Otherwise, if the user is not at the location, the incoming call may proceed in normal course or may be processed as desired based on the user not being at the location. (Id. at 2, ¶ 6.) “[A]n exact location or area about a certain location is referred to as a zone.” (Id. at 3, ¶ 15.) More specifically, “[f]or a given zone 12, one or more telephony devices, which are associated with a particular user, are defined” (id. at 4, ¶ 16). For example, a circuit-switched telephone, a mobile terminal, a voice- over-packet (VoP) telephone and a VoP communication client may all be associated with the same zone: “For the present invention, incoming calls intended for any one of these devices may be controlled and rerouted to another of these telephony devices based on the relative location of the called party associated with the telephony devices.” (Id. at 4-5, ¶ 17.) “[D]ifferent call processing rules may be implemented based on the zone in which the user is located” (id. at 2, ¶ 6). Thus, claim 1 requires associating a plurality of telephony devices with a given zone (claim 1, step (a)) – which is an “exact location or area about a certain location” (Spec. 3, ¶ 15) – then detecting an incoming call that is intended for one of those devices that are associated with the zone (claim 1, step (b)) and determining that the called device is associated with the given zone (claim 1, step (c)). Appeal 2011-005244 Application 10/970,590 5 As Appellant has pointed out, these steps differ from those in the method described by Goss. Goss states that in some known call routing methods, subscribers are provided a new telephone number, hereafter referred to as a ‘reach number’. Each subscriber conveys his reach number to callers as his only telephone number. When a call is directed to a subscriber’s reach number, telephone equipment routes the call to prestored, subscriber-specified telephone numbers. (Goss, col. 1, ll. 13-18.) Goss’ system similarly includes “a database 30 which stores a subscriber’s reach number along with a corresponding list of subscriber- supplied telephone numbers with associated locations” (id. at col. 3, ll. 43-46). Goss’ system also includes “an active location determining system” that includes “location determining device 42 [which] interacts with or determines position from either a Global Positioning System (GPS) or a Local Positioning System (LPS) as is known in the art” (id. at col. 3, ll. 58- 66). When the processor in Goss’ system “recognizes that the incoming call is directed to a subscriber’s reach number, . . . [it] directs the wireless network transceiver 40 to transmit an interrogation message over a wide area for receipt by the subscriber’s location determining device 42” (id. at col. 5, ll. 2-7). If a response from location determining device 42 is received, the processor accesses a database to compare the location of the subscriber with the locations of subscriber-specified telephones and routes the call to a telephone in proximity to the subscriber (id. at col. 5, ll. 15-26). We agree with Appellant that Goss’ method does not involve detecting an incoming call intended for a telephony device that is associated Appeal 2011-005244 Application 10/970,590 6 with a specific zone, as recited in claim 1. Rather, Goss’ method involves detecting an incoming call directed to a reach number, which is associated with a specific subscriber rather than with a telephony device in a specific zone. In Goss’ method, the call to the reach number triggers a search for the subscriber’s location and the call is then routed to a telephone near that location. Thus, Goss’ method associates telephones with a particular reach number, not a particular zone, and routes the call to whichever telephone, in whichever zone, is close to the subscriber’s current location. In contrast, claim 1 requires detecting whether a call is intended for a telephony device in a particular zone and, if the user is located within that zone, routing the call to a desired device within the specific zone that was originally called. The Examiner has not persuasively established that the claimed steps are disclosed by or would have been obvious based on the method described by Goss, alone or combined with Pearson and Lei. SUMMARY We reverse all of the rejections on appeal. REVERSED cdc