Ex Parte Armanino et al

Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences

Mar 27, 2009

10878961 (B.P.A.I. Mar. 27, 2009)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
____________________

BEFORE THE BOARD OF PATENT APPEALS
AND INTERFERENCES
____________________

Ex parte FREDERICK MICHAEL ARMANINO, RAGHVENDRA G.
SAVOOR, STEPHEN A. SPOSATO, MENGFENG TSAI and SAM
CAUBLE
____________________

Appeal 2008-5783
Application 10/878,9611
Technology Center 2600
____________________

Decided2:March 27, 2009
____________________

Before KENNETH W. HAIRSTON, JOSEPH F. RUGGIERO, and MARC
S. HOFF, Administrative Patent Judges.

HOFF, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL

STATEMENT OF CASE

1 The real party in interest is SBC Knowledge Ventures, L.P.
2 The two-month time period for filing an appeal or commencing a civil
action, as recited in 37 C.F.R. § 1.304, begins to run from the decided date
shown on this page of the decision. The time period does not run from the
Mail Date (paper delivery) or Notification Date (electronic delivery).
Appeal 2008-5783
Application 10/878,961

2
Appellants appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134 from a Final Rejection of
claims 1-18.
We affirm.
Appellants’ invention relates to a call data record collection engine
that non-intrusively monitors and collects data for calls routed using
signaling system 7 (SS7) data links coupled to telephone offices, and a
dynamic call record building engine to dynamically build call management
records based on information retrieved by the call data record collection
engine. Call management records are correlated with a relational data model
for a subscriber on a real-time basis (Spec. 2).
Claim 1 is exemplary:
1. A system of managing call information, the system comprising:
a call data record collection engine that non-intrusively monitors and
collects data for calls routed using SS7 links coupled to telephone offices,
wherein the call data record collection engine obtains data by monitoring the
SS7 links directly or by monitoring the SS7 links indirectly by connections
to the telephone offices;
a dynamic call record building engine to dynamically build call
management records based on information retrieved by the call data record
collection engine, the call management records including a call time/data
stamp, calling party information, called party information, a call type,
geographic information carrier information, a call disposition, and a call
duration; and
a relational data model for a subscriber including telephone numbers
associated with the subscriber that are under call management, wherein the
call management records are correlated with the relational data model for the
subscriber on a real-time basis.

The prior art relied upon by the Examiner in rejecting the claims on
appeal is:
Freese US 5,291,543 Mar. 1, 1994
Tiliks US 2003/0086552 A1 May 8, 2003
Appeal 2008-5783
Application 10/878,961

3
Nolting US 6,744,866 B1 Jun. 1, 2004

Claims 1, 2, and 4-6 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Nolting in view of Freese.
Claims 3 and 7-18 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Nolting in view of Freese and Tiliks.
Rather than repeat the arguments of Appellants or the Examiner, we
make reference to the Appeal Brief (filed January 19, 2007) and the
Examiner’s Answer (mailed June 19, 2007) for their respective details.
ISSUES
There are two principal issues in the appeal before us:
1. Did Appellants show that the Examiner erred in finding that
Nolting teaches monitoring SS7 links directly, or monitoring SS7 links
indirectly by connections to telephone offices?
2. Did Appellants show that the Examiner erred in concluding that
motivation exists to combine Nolting with Freese to obtain the claimed
invention?
FINDINGS OF FACT
The following Findings of Fact (FF) are shown by a preponderance of
the evidence.
The Invention
1. According to Appellants, the invention concerns a call data
record collection engine that non-intrusively monitors and collects data for
calls routed using signaling system 7 (SS7) data links coupled to telephone
offices, and a dynamic call record building engine to dynamically build call
management records based on information retrieved by the call data record
Appeal 2008-5783
Application 10/878,961

4
collection engine. Call management records are correlated with a relational
data model for a subscriber on a real-time basis (Spec. 2).
Nolting
2. Nolting teaches monitors 311, 312 to the SS7 links to the signal
transfer points (STPs) 21, 23 that make up a SS7 interoffice signaling
network (col. 12, ll. 52-59).
3. One or more site processors 35 reassemble the signaling
pertaining to a single call to provide CDRs (col. 13, ll. 10-19).
4. Nolting’s “Background Art” section states that “more
traditional approaches, such as the accumulation of data from the switches
themselves … fell short of providing the desired information” (col. 4, ll. 33-
36).
5. Nolting teaches the accumulation of Automatic Message
Accounting (AMA) records, which are generated from switches (col. 5, l. 63
– col. 6, l. 8; col. 14, ll. 12-19).
Freese
6. Freese teaches a call administration system that continuously
monitors all records of calls processed by a related cellular switch as the
calls are processed, in order to perform immediate billing of cellular air time
and long distance telephone charges (col. 1, ll. 10-11; col. 2, ll. 50-53).
Tiliks
7. Tiliks teaches call reporting services that enable subscribers to
access incoming and outgoing call information related to completed and not
completed calls (para. [0002]).
Appeal 2008-5783
Application 10/878,961

5
PRINCIPLES OF LAW
“Section 103 forbids issuance of a patent when ‘the differences
between the subject matter sought to be patented and the prior art are such
that the subject matter as a whole would have been obvious at the time the
invention was made to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which said
subject matter pertains.’” KSR Int'l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 127 S. Ct. 1727,
1734 (2007). The question of obviousness is resolved on the basis of
underlying factual determinations including (1) the scope and content of the
prior art, (2) any differences between the claimed subject matter and the
prior art, (3) the level of skill in the art, and (4) where in evidence, so-called
secondary considerations. Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 17-18
(1966). See also KSR, 127 S. Ct. at 1734 (“While the sequence of these
questions might be reordered in any particular case, the [Graham] factors
continue to define the inquiry that controls.”).
In KSR, the Supreme Court emphasized “the need for caution in
granting a patent based on the combination of elements found in the prior
art,” id. at 1739, and discussed circumstances in which a patent might be
determined to be obvious. In particular, the Supreme Court emphasized that
“the principles laid down in Graham reaffirmed the ‘functional approach’ of
Hotchkiss, 11 How. 248.” KSR, 127 S. Ct. at 1739 (citing Graham v. John
Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 12 (1966) (emphasis added)), and reaffirmed
principles based on its precedent that “[t]he combination of familiar
elements according to known methods is likely to be obvious when it does
no more than yield predictable results.” Id. The Court explained:
When a work is available in one field of endeavor, design
incentives and other market forces can prompt variations of it,
either in the same field or a different one. If a person of
Appeal 2008-5783
Application 10/878,961

6
ordinary skill can implement a predictable variation, § 103
likely bars its patentability. For the same reason, if a technique
has been used to improve one device, and a person of ordinary
skill in the art would recognize that it would improve similar
devices in the same way, using the technique is obvious unless
its actual application is beyond his or her skill.

Id. at 1740. The operative question in this “functional approach” is
thus “whether the improvement is more than the predictable use of prior art
elements according to their established functions.” Id.
The determination of obviousness must consider, inter alia, whether a
person of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to combine the
prior art to achieve the claimed invention and whether there would have
been a reasonable expectation of success in doing so. Brown & Williamson
Tobacco Corp. v. Philip Morris, Inc., 229 F.3d 1120, 1124 (Fed. Cir. 2000).
Medichem S.A. v. Rolabo S.L., 437 F.3d 1157, 1164 (Fed. Cir. 2006). Where
the teachings of two or more prior art references conflict, the Examiner must
weigh the power of each reference to suggest solutions to one of ordinary
skill in the art, considering the degree to which one reference might
accurately discredit another. In re Young, 927 F.2d 588, 591 (Fed. Cir.
1991). If the proposed modification would render the prior art invention
being modified unsatisfactory for its intended purpose, then there is no
suggestion or motivation to make the proposed modification. In re Gordon,
733 F.2d 900, 902 (Fed. Cir. 1984). Further, our reviewing court has held
that “[a] reference may be said to teach away when a person of ordinary
skill, upon reading 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.” In re Gurley, 27 F.3d 551, 553
Appeal 2008-5783
Application 10/878,961

7
(Fed. Cir. 1994); Para-Ordnance Mfg. v. SGS Importers Int’l, 73 F.3d 1085,
1090 (Fed. Cir. 1995).

ANALYSIS
Claims 1, 2, and 4-6
Appellants present separate argument sections to address independent
claims 1 and 6. Each section, however, relies on the same two assertions.
First, Appellants assert that the combination of Nolting and Freese
fails to disclose or suggest a call data record collection engine that obtains
data by monitoring SS7 links directly or by monitoring the SS7 links
indirectly by connections to telephone offices (Br. 4). Appellants argue that
Nolting teaches acquiring call data records (CDRs) from the publicly
switched telephone network (PSTN) via a wide area network (WAN) 37,
rather than monitoring SS7 links directly or indirectly, and that Nolting’s
relational database 61 obtains CDRs from site processors 35, rather than by
monitoring SS7 links directly or indirectly (Br. 4).
We are not persuaded by Appellants’ argument. Nolting teaches
monitors 311, 312 to the SS7 links to the signal transfer points (STPs) 21, 23
that make up a SS7 interoffice signaling network (FF 2). Nolting further
teaches one or more site processors 35 that reassemble the signaling
pertaining to a single call to provide CDRs (FF 3). Nolting therefore teaches
the claimed call data record collection via direct monitoring of SS7 links.
Appellants’ argument regarding Nolting’s relational database is not
considered relevant, because Nolting teaches direct monitoring of SS7 links
in the first instance.
Appeal 2008-5783
Application 10/878,961

8
Second, Appellants assert that motivation to combine Nolting with
Freese is lacking, because whereas Nolting allegedly teaches away from
monitoring and storing data directly from a telephone switch, Freese teaches
real-time cellular account management made possible by monitoring and
storing data directly from a data port of a single cellular switch (Br. 5).
We do not find Appellants’ argument persuasive of Examiner error.
Nolting’s “Background Art” section states that “more traditional approaches,
such as the accumulation of data from the switches themselves … fell short
of providing the desired information” (FF 4). We regard Appellant’s
disclosure as expressing that the traditional approach was insufficient, but
that it does not discourage the person of ordinary skill in the art from
following the path set out in the reference. Gurley, 27 F.3d at 553. Further,
as the Examiner points out (Ans. 16), Nolting not only monitors SS7 links to
accumulate call data, but also teaches the accumulation of Automatic
Message Accounting (AMA) records, which are generated from switches
(FF 5). Nolting’s teaching of accumulation of call data from switches is
powerful evidence that Nolting does not in fact intend to discourage persons
of skill in the art from accumulating call data from switches.
Appellants, therefore, have not demonstrated error in the Examiner’s
rejection of claim 1 under 35 U.S.C. § 103, and we affirm the rejection, as
well as the rejection of dependent claims 2, 4, and 5, not separately argued.
With respect to independent claim 6, Appellants again argue that
Nolting does not teach collecting call data by directly monitoring the
plurality of SS7 data links, and that Nolting teaches away from the asserted
combination with Freese. As explained supra, we do not consider either of
Appeal 2008-5783
Application 10/878,961

9
these arguments to be persuasive of Examiner error. We therefore affirm the
rejection of claim 6 under 35 U.S.C. § 103.

Claim 3
We affirm supra the rejection of parent claim 1 under 35 U.S.C. § 103
as unpatentable over Nolting in view of Freese. Appellants present no
separate argument for the patentability of dependent claim 3. We therefore
affirm the rejection of claim 3 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as unpatentable over
Nolting in view of Freese and Tiliks for the same reasons expressed with
respect to claim 1.
Claims 7-9
Appellants present no separate argument for the patentability of
claims 7-9. Because we affirm the rejection of independent claim 6, supra,
we therefore affirm the rejection of dependent claims 7-9 under 35 U.S.C. §
103 for the same reasons.
Claims 10-18
Appellants’ arguments for the patentability of claim 10 are the same
arguments presented with respect to claims 1 and 6. Because we do not
consider either of these arguments to be persuasive of Examiner error, we
affirm the rejection of independent claim 10, as well as dependent claims 11-
18 not separately argued, under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as unpatentable over
Nolting in view of Freese and Tiliks.
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
Appellants have not shown that the Examiner erred in finding that
Nolting teaches monitoring SS7 links directly, or monitoring SS7 links
indirectly by connections to telephone offices.
Appeal 2008-5783
Application 10/878,961

10
Appellants have not shown that the Examiner erred in concluding that
motivation exists to combine Nolting with Freese to obtain the claimed
invention.
ORDER
The Examiner’s rejection of claims 1-18 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

gvw

AT & T LEGAL DEPARTMENT - Toler
ATTN: PATENT DOCKETING
ROOM 2A-207
ONE AT & T WAY
BEDMINISTER NJ 07921