Ex Parte Barthelemy

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Nov 14, 2017

13825500 (P.T.A.B. Nov. 14, 2017)

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.
13/825,500 06/06/2013 Serge Barthelemy 1034512-000026 2995
21839 7590 11/16/2017
BUCHANAN, INGERSOLL & ROONEY PC
POST OFFICE BOX 1404
ALEXANDRIA, VA 22313-1404
EXAMINER
MANOHARAN, MUTHUSWAMY GANAPATHY
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2645
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
11/16/2017 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):
ADIPDOCl@BIPC.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte SERGE BARTHELEMY
Appeal 2017-006662
Application 13/825,500
Technology Center 2600
Before JOHNNY A. KUMAR, LARRY J. HUME, and
MATTHEW J. McNEILL, Administrative Patent Judges.
KUMAR, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
Appeal 2017-006662
Application 13/825,500
STATEMENT OF CASE
This is a decision on appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the
Examiner’s Final Rejection of claims 1 and 3—15. We have jurisdiction
under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We affirm.
INVENTION
Claim 1 is representative of the claimed invention and reproduced
below:
1. A method for creating and transmitting a telephone call
invoked by a Sender Service to a Telephone of a Recipient, in
which:
a server of the Sender Service presents at a Call Server, a
call request containing numerical information enabling the Call
Server to trigger a call to the Telephone of the Recipient from a
Caller Number intended to be displayed on said Telephone,
wherein the call contains an Enhanced Voice Message,
constituted by (i) a voice message which is constructed by the
Call Server on the basis of a part of the information contained
in said call request and which is intended to be broadcast during
said call, and (ii) a non-voice Complementary Item of
Information, contained in said call request, that comprises a
string of alphanumeric or numeric characters and inserted by
the Call Server into said Caller Number, and
wherein said voice message indicates to the Recipient a
nature and use of said Complementary Item of Information.
REJECTIONS AT ISSUE1
Claims 1—7, 9, 10, and 12—14 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a)
as being unpatentable over Ye (US 2009/0310766 Al, pub. Dec. 17, 2009)
1 Throughout this opinion we refer to the Final Office Action mailed on
October 8, 2015, and the Examiner’s Answer mailed on January 3, 2017.
2
Appeal 2017-006662
Application 13/825,500
and Peden et al. (US 8,428,551 Bl, iss. Apr. 23, 2013) (hereinafter
“Peden”). Final Act. 3-9.
Claim 8 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Ye, Peden, and Kokko et al. (US 2005/0129191, pub. June
16, 2005) (hereinafter “Kokko”). Final Act. 9.
Claims 11 and 15 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Ye, Peden, and Chiang et al. (US 2010/0198666 Al, pub.
Aug. 5, 2010) (hereinafter “Chiang”). Final Act. 9-11.
ANALYSIS2
We have reviewed the Examiner’s rejections in light of Appellant’s
contentions the Examiner erred. Further, we have reviewed the Examiner’s
response to Appellant’s arguments. The Examiner has provided a
comprehensive response to each argument presented by the Appellant on
pages 2 through 5 of the Answer. We have reviewed this response and
concur with the Examiner’s findings and conclusions. We adopt as our own
(1) the findings and reasons set forth by the Examiner in the action from
which this appeal is taken and (2) the reasons set forth by the Examiner in
the Examiner’s Final Action and Answer in response to Appellant’s Appeal
Brief. Final Act. 2—11; Ans. 2—5.
In particular, with respect to independent claims 1 and 13, Appellant
contends:
[1.] what Ye discloses are additional content items,
including text messages as well as images, that are
2 Throughout this opinion we refer to the Appeal Brief dated August 5, 2016,
and Reply Brief dated February 28, 2017.
3
Appeal 2017-006662
Application 13/825,500
transmitted to the mobile phones accompanying a voice
message, without regard for the caller number used for
the call. ... [Ye] discloses the display of CID content on
a mobile phone, where the content includes text and
images that are not associated with the caller number. In
fact, paragraph [0053] discloses CID content without
mentioning the caller number entirely, which reinforces
the lack of a connection between the caller number and
the content, let alone that the content is actually inserted
into the caller number.
App. Br. 4—5 (emphasis added).
[2.] [T]here is no disclosure or suggestion in Ye that any
nature or use of the CID content is indicated in the voice
message. In fact, Ye fails to disclose or suggest any
relationship between CID content and the voice
message entirely, let alone the indication of the nature
and use of the Complementary Item of Information being
included in the voice message as presently claimed.
Id. at 6.
As to Appellant’s above contention 1, Appellant’s argument is not
commensurate with the claim language as the claims do not preclude Ye’s
“without regard to the caller number” or “not associated with the caller
number” aspects. Appellant’s arguments are not commensurate in scope
with the claims because the claims do not recite “connection between the
caller number and the content.” (Emphasis added).
In addition, we agree with the Examiner’s finding that in Ye, “[t]he
displayed message in Figure 9 includes both the caller number and also the
content inserted along with the caller number(Happy birth day wish).” Final
Act. 3.
As to Appellant’s above contention 2, we disagree. We agree with the
Examiner’s finding that “Ye teaches (Figures 9), inserted multimedia
4
Appeal 2017-006662
Application 13/825,500
presentation of message ‘happy birthday Jane’ which indicates the nature
and use of the complementary item of information.” Ans. 5 (emphasis
added).
We have considered Appellant’s Reply Brief but find it unpersuasive
to rebut the Examiner’s responses.
Appellant has not separately argued dependent claims 3—12, 14,
and 15, which thus fall with their respective base claims.
Thus, on this record, we are not persuaded of Examiner error.
Therefore, we sustain the Examiner’s § 103 rejections of claims 1 and 3—15.
DECISION
We affirm the decision of the Examiner to reject claims 1 and 3—15.
No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with
this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a)(l)(iv). See 37
C.F.R. § 41.50(f).
AFFIRMED
5