Bianco, Itay et al.

Patent Trials and Appeals Board

Jan 23, 2020

14810687 - (D) (P.T.A.B. Jan. 23, 2020)

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.
14/810,687 07/28/2015 Itay Bianco V317 7579
72623 7590 01/23/2020
MOSER TABOADA / VONAGE HOLDINGS CORP.
1030 BROAD STREET
SUITE 203
SHREWSBURY, NJ 07702
EXAMINER
WYLLIE, CHRISTOPHER T
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2465
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
01/23/2020 ELECTRONIC
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.
Notice of the Office communication was sent electronically on above-indicated "Notification Date" to the
following e-mail address(es):
docketing@mtiplaw.com
llinardakis@mtiplaw.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte ITAY BIANCO, BRIAN PANTE, and YUVAL GOLAN
Appeal 2019-001406
Application 14/810,687
Technology Center 2400
Before JASON V. MORGAN, ADAM J. PYONIN, and
PHILLIP A. BENNETT, Administrative Patent Judges.
PYONIN, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
Pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 134(a), Appellant1 appeals from the
Examiner’s rejection. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We REVERSE.

1 We use the word “Appellant” to refer to “applicant” as defined in 37
C.F.R. § 1.42(a). Appellant identifies the real party in interest as Vonage
Business Inc. Appeal Br. 3.
Appeal 2019-001406
Application 14/810,687

2
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Introduction
The Application is directed to “processing interactive voice response
(IVR) input in a call setup message for immediate redirection.” Spec. ¶ 1.
Claims 1–15 are pending. Claims 1 and 9 are independent. Appeal Br. 12–
14. Claim 1 is reproduced below for reference (emphasis added):
1. A computer-implemented method for processing
interactive voice response (IVR) input in a call setup request,
comprising:
receiving at an IVR system a call setup message including
information associated with one or more data fields;
parsing the information included in the call setup message;
and
directing a call based solely on the information included
in the call setup message.
References and Rejections
Claims 1–7 and 9–14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 102(a)(1) as
anticipated by Poi (US 2008/0260137 A1; Oct. 23, 2008). Final Act. 2.
Claims 8 and 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as obvious in
view of Poi and Schwagmann (US 2007/0097886 A1; May 3, 2007). Final
Act. 5.

ANALYSIS
Appellant argues the Examiner’s anticipation rejection is in error,
because “[t]he call setup message[,] as described in Appellant[’s]
independent claim 1, is in stark contrast to the chain of messages that
enables Poi to achieve its call processing to an available agent.” Appeal
Br. 8. Appellant further contends that, unlike the method of claim 1, “Poi is
Appeal 2019-001406
Application 14/810,687

3
not able to route the call based solely on the information received in the call
setup message” because “Poi teaches using the phone number in the call
setup message to further query a database, and the information retrieved
from the database is used to route the call.” Reply Br. 4 (emphasis omitted).
We are persuaded the Examiner’s rejection is in error. We agree with
Appellant that claim 1’s “call is directed to an appropriate agent based on the
information received in the call setup message.” Appeal Br. 6. Claim 1
recites the call is directed “based solely on the information included in the
call setup message.” The “solely” claim limitation requires the call setup
message to include all the information used to direct the call, as no other
information may be used. See Appeal Br. 7.
Poi, as cited by the Examiner, discloses the call is directed based on
information obtained beyond the setup message: information from the IVR
system or information contained in a transfer request message in addition to
the setup message. See Poi ¶ 28 (“SIP proxy 130 may determine that the call
is to be forwarded to voice portal 140 based on the current call processing
load of voice portal”); Poi ¶ 30 (“[V]oice portal 140 generates a transfer
request message identifying that the call should be forwarded to voice portal
150.”); Ans. 4. In contrast with claim 1, the cited portions of Poi do not
direct the call based solely on the information in the call setup message as
Poi uses additional information (e.g., the call processing load or the transfer
message information). Therefore, we are persuaded the Examiner’s
anticipation rejection based on Poi is in error. See Appeal Br. 9.
We do not sustain the Examiner’s anticipation rejection of
independent claim 1, independent claim 9 which recites limitations
commensurate in scope, or claims 2–7 and 10–14 which depend therefrom.
Appeal 2019-001406
Application 14/810,687

4
The Examiner has not shown Schwagmann teaches the solely limitation,
therefore we do not sustain the Examiner’s rejections of dependent claims 8
and 14 for the same reasons provided herein. See Final Act. 5.

DECISION SUMMARY
In summary:
Claims
Rejected
35 U.S.C. § Reference(s) Affirmed Reversed
1–7, 9–14 102(a)(1) Poi 1–7, 9–14
8, 15 103 Poi, Schwagmann 8, 15
Overall
Outcome
1–15
REVERSED