Ex Parte Abbasi et al

Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences

Nov 9, 2011

11005683 (B.P.A.I. Nov. 9, 2011)

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.
11/005,683 12/07/2004 Zahid Abbasi 1490a 8843
28004 7590 11/09/2011
SPRINT
6391 SPRINT PARKWAY
KSOPHT0101-Z2100
OVERLAND PARK, KS 66251-2100
EXAMINER
GORT, ELAINE L
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
3687
MAIL DATE DELIVERY MODE
11/09/2011 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 BOARD OF PATENT APPEALS
AND INTERFERENCES
____________

Ex parte ZAHID ABBASI, MINH DUY KHUC, CARL ROGERS, ISAAC
SHANE ALLEN, and DAN SBISA
____________

Appeal 2010-011092
Application 11/005,683
Technology Center 3600
____________

Before: ANTON W. FETTING, JOSEPH A. FISCHETTI, and
MICHAEL W. KIM, Administrative Patent Judges.

KIM, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL
Appeal 2010-011092
Application 11/005,683

2
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
This is an appeal from the final rejection of claims 1-20. We have
jurisdiction to review the case under 35 U.S.C. §§ 134 and 6 (2002).
The claimed invention is directed to systems and methods for
providing pre-pay and post-pay calls using an integrated service platform
connected for a portion of the calls (Spec. 1:13-15). Claim 1, reproduced
below, is further illustrative of the claimed subject matter.
1. A method of providing a pre-paid communication
service and a post-paid communication service, the method
comprising:
in a communication system during a first call, receiving a
pre-paid communication service request from a first user and
responsively establishing a first communication link between
the first user and an integrated service platform;
in the communication system during a second call,
receiving a post-paid communication service request from a
second user and responsively establishing a second
communication link between the second user and the integrated
service platform;
in the integrated service platform during the first call,
interacting with the first user over the first communication link
to obtain first user information, processing the first user
information to obtain a pre-paid communication service
validation parameter, and transferring the pre-paid
communication service validation parameter to the
communication system;
in the integrated service platform during the second call,
interacting with the second user over the second
communication link to obtain second user information,
processing the second user information to obtain a post-paid
communication service validation parameter, and transferring
the post-paid communication service validation parameter to
the communication system;
in the communication system during the first call,
releasing the first communication link between the first user
Appeal 2010-011092
Application 11/005,683

3
and the integrated service platform, establishing a first voice
path between the first user and a first destination, and
controlling the first voice path based on the pre-paid
communication service validation parameter; and
in the communication system during the second call,
releasing the second communication link between the second
user and the integrated service platform, establishing a second
voice path between the second user and a second destination,
and controlling the second voice path based on the post-paid
communication service validation parameter.

Claims 1-4, 7-14, and 17-20 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a)
as unpatentable over Hanson (US Pat. No. 6,035,025, iss. Mar. 7, 2000) in
view of Ronen (US Pat. No. 5,864,610, iss. Jan. 26, 1999) and IPVoice.com
– New Name Unveiled for Emerging Internet Telephony Company, Bus.
Wire, New York, 1-3 (Apr. 19, 1999) (hereinafter “IPVoice.com”); and
claims 5, 6, 15, and 16 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
unpatentable over Hanson in view of Ronen, IPVoice.com, and O’Neil (US
Pat. No. 6,226,364 B1, iss. May 1, 2001).
We AFFIRM.

ISSUE
Did the Examiner err in asserting that a combination of Hanson,
Ronen, and IPVoice.com renders obvious independent claim 11? The issue
turns on whether the combination of Hanson, Ronen, and IPVoice.com
render obvious an integrated service platform that handles both pre-paid and
post-paid communication service, where

1 In setting forth our analysis, we choose independent claim 1 as
representative, pursuant to our authority under 37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(1)(vii).
Appeal 2010-011092
Application 11/005,683

4
in the communication system during the second call,
releasing the second communication link between the second
user and the integrated service platform, establishing a second
voice path between the second user and a second destination,
and controlling the second voice path based on the post-paid
communication service validation parameter[,]
as recited in independent claim 1.

FINDINGS OF FACT
Hanson
FF1. Hanson discloses a prepaid bundled telecommunications
account that allows the account holder to pay for telecommunications
service access with funds from a single prepaid account balance (1:53-55).

Ronen
FF2. Ronen discloses that billing for the information and/or services
provided to a user by an ISP on the Internet (or other data network) is
effected by a real or virtual separate phone call placed by the user on the
telephone network to a 900 telephone number subscribed to by the ISP for
these billing purposes (5:10-16).
FF3. Once the ISP receives the 900 number call from a user and
associates that telephone call with a waiting request for service on the
Internet, the requested information and/or service to the user's terminal can
be provided. If the billing mechanism is arranged so that the 900 number
call connection needs to remain intact during the user's access to the ISP,
billing for the 900 will be based on the duration of the connection (5:31-39).

Appeal 2010-011092
Application 11/005,683

5
IPVoice.com
FF4. IPVoice.com discloses voice over IP services (p. 1).

ANALYSIS
We are not persuaded the Examiner erred in asserting that a
combination of Hanson, Ronen, and IPVoice.com renders obvious
independent claim 1 (App. Br. 8-12; Reply Br. 4-5). Appellants assert that
“[neither] Hanson [nor Ronen] teach or suggest an integrated service
platform that provides a communication system with validation parameters
for both pre-paid and post-paid calls” (App. Br. 9). However, Hanson is
only cited for disclosing an integrated service platform with prepaid calls
(FF1), while a combination of Ronen and IPVoice.com is cited for
disclosing the post-paid calls (Exam’r’s Ans. 4-7). See In re Merck & Co.
Inc., 800 F.2d 1091, 1097 (Fed. Cir. 1986) (the argument that a single
reference alone does not disclose the recited claimed steps is not persuasive
because nonobviousness cannot be established by attacking the references
individually when the rejection is predicated upon a combination of prior art
disclosures); In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 426 (CCPA 1981) (“one cannot
show non-obviousness by attacking references individually where, as here,
the rejections are based on combinations of references”).
Appellants then assert that
Ronen also does not teach or suggest, during a single call, a
communication system that releases a communication link
between a user and the integrated service platform after a
validation parameter is received and during the same call where
the communication system establishes a voice path between the
user and a destination.

Appeal 2010-011092
Application 11/005,683

6
(App. Br. 9-10). However, Ronen discloses a user calling a 900 number to
establish data service to a user terminal (FF2, FF3). Once the data service is
established, Ronen discloses a scenario where the 900 call and the data
service occur simultaneously (FF3). The Examiner then cites IPVoice.com
for providing voice service over the data service of Ronen, which would also
occur simultaneously with the 900 call (FF4) (Exam’r’s Ans. 4-5, 7).
Accordingly, a combination of Ronen and IPVoice.com discloses
in the communication system during the second call [900
call], releasing the second communication link between the
second user and the integrated service platform [data service
established], establishing a second voice path between the
second user and a second destination [voice over IP on data
service], and controlling the second voice path based on the
post-paid communication service validation parameter[,]
as recited in independent claim 1. While Appellants may have intended for
the recited “voice path” to exclude voice over IP (App. Br. 11), such an
aspect is not set forth the claims. See CollegeNet, Inc. v. ApplyYourself,
Inc., 418 F.3d 1225, 1231 (Fed. Cir. 2005) (while the specification can be
examined for proper context of a claim term, limitations from the
specification will not be imported into the claims).
Appellants assert that the Examiner’s combination of references
would (1) render Hanson inoperable for its intended purpose and (2) Hanson
and Ronen teach away from an integrated service platform (App. Br. 10).
Regarding (1), we agree with the Examiner that the proposed combination
merely adds the functionality of Ronen and IPVoice.com to Hanson, and
thus would not render Hanson inoperable. Regarding (2), a teaching away
requires disparagement, and Appellants have not set forth any evidence that
Hanson disparages the subject matter of Ronen, or vice versa. See In re
Appeal 2010-011092
Application 11/005,683

7
Gurley, 27 F.3d 551, 553 (Fed. Cir. 1994) (“[a] reference may be said to
teach away when a person of ordinary skill, upon [examining] the reference,
would be discouraged from following the path set out in the reference, or
would be led in a direction divergent from the path that was taken by the
applicant”).
Appellants assert that “Ronen teaches of two separate communication
sessions, such as calls, to achieve what claims 1 and 11 achieve in the single
‘second call’ for post-paid communication service” (Reply Br. 4). However,
such an aspect is not set forth in the claims. See CollegeNet, Inc. v.
ApplyYourself, Inc., 418 F.3d at 1231.
The decision of the Examiner to reject claims 1-20 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). See 37 C.F.R.
§ 1.136(a)(1)(iv).

AFFIRMED

hh