Ex Parte Abramson et alDownload PDFPatent Trial and Appeal BoardSep 23, 201311218153 (P.T.A.B. Sep. 23, 2013) Copy Citation UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE ____________ BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD ____________ Ex parte SANDRA R. ABRAMSON and STEPHEN M. MILTON ____________ Appeal 2011-000369 Application 11/218,153 Technology Center 2600 ____________ Before MAHSHID D. SAADAT, DEBRA K. STEPHENS, and JUSTIN BUSCH, Administrative Patent Judges. SAADAT, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL Appellants appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from a final rejection of claims 8-10, 13, 14, 18, 19, and 21, which constitute all the claims pending in this application. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). We affirm. Appeal 2011-000369 Application 11/218,153 2 STATEMENT OF THE CASE Introduction Appellants’ invention allows a user who is on a call using a call appearance at a first terminal to continue the call on a call appearance at a second terminal, wherein the second terminal has been excluded from the call (see Spec. ¶ [0012]). Exemplary Claim Claim 8 is illustrative of the invention and reads as follows. 8. A method comprising: excluding a second telecommunications terminal from a call, wherein the call had been answered at a first telecommunications terminal via a first call appearance that is associated, by a private branch exchange, with a first user; receiving, at the private branch exchange, a first signal that indicates that the first telecommunications terminal is disconnecting from the call; receiving, from the second telecommunications terminal, a second signal, that signifies that the excluded second telecommunications terminal is to be added to the call; and adding, at the private branch exchange, the excluded second telecommunications terminal to the call via a second call appearance, only when the first and second signals are received within a predetermined time interval of each other, wherein the second call appearance is also associated, by the private branch exchange, with the first user. Rejection on Appeal Claims 8-10, 13, 14, 18, 19, and 21 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Brody (WO 98/36550, Feb. 11, 1998) and Muratore (US 2007/0149182 A1, Jun. 28, 2007 (§ 371(c)(1), (2), (4) Date May 19, 2006, PCT filed Nov. 20, 2003)). (See Ans. 4-8). Appeal 2011-000369 Application 11/218,153 3 ANALYSIS We have reviewed the Examiner’s rejections in light of Appellants’ arguments that the Examiner has erred. We disagree with Appellants’ conclusions. We adopt as our own 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 Examiner’s Answer in response to Appellants’ Appeal Brief (see Ans. 8-12). However, we highlight and address specific arguments and findings for emphasis as follows. Appellants contend that “the Muratore reference is not a valid 102 prior art reference with regard to this application” (Br. 11). Appellants state that: Muratore is a US application that is based on a PCT application, and its § 371 filing date is May 19, 2006. Therefore, the earliest effective date of that document is May 19, 2006 - after the filing date of the present application. The US application is not itself a valid 102 reference against the present application. (Id.). In response, the Examiner relies on MPEP, section 706.02(f)(1) [R-5], Examination Guidelines for Applying References Under 35 U.S.C. 102(e), and determines that Muratore meets the criteria set forth under this section (Ans. 10-11). The Examiner concludes that Muratore has the 35 U.S.C. § 102(e)(1) date of the International Application filing date, which is before September 9, 2005 – the filing date of the present application (Ans. 11). We agree with the Examiner’s findings and conclusion that Muratore is available as prior art for use in a rejection under § 102. Additionally, Appellants argue that the proposed combination of Brody and Muratore does not teach or suggest “that the second call is added only when the first and second signals are received within a predetermined Appeal 2011-000369 Application 11/218,153 4 time interval of each other,” as required by claim 8 (Br. 12). In response, the Examiner states: Brody in at least page 9, line 30 teaches a time out period restriction to receive the directive call pick up message, which read as “a second signal”, a mandatory condition before the process proceeds to resuming the interrupted communication. The time out period reads as “predetermined time interval”. Such a timeout period is not random but predetermined by designers/manufactures. (Ans. 12). We agree with the Examiner’s findings and conclusion. CONCLUSION On the record before us, we conclude that, because Muratore is available as prior art and its combination with Brody teaches or suggests the disputed claim limitation, the Examiner did not err in rejecting claim 8, and claims 9, 10, 13, 14, 18, 19, and 21 not argued separately, under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a). DECISION The decision of the Examiner rejecting claims 8-10, 13, 14, 18, 19, and 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). AFFIRMED ELD Copy with citationCopy as parenthetical citation