Ex Parte Cai et alDownload PDFPatent Trial and Appeal BoardDec 30, 201612890167 (P.T.A.B. Dec. 30, 2016) Copy Citation 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. 12/890,167 09/24/2010 Yigang Cai 807586/LUTZ201154US01 7783 48116 7590 01/04/2017 FAY STTARPF/T TTf’F.NT EXAMINER 1228 Euclid Avenue, 5th Floor KASSIM, KHALED M The Halle Building Cleveland, OH 44115-1843 ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 2468 NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE 01/04/2017 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): docketing @ faysharpe.com ipsnarocp @ nokia. com PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07) UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD Ex parte YIGANG CAI and SUZANN HUA Appeal 2016-002174 Application 12/890,167 Technology Center 2400 Before ELENI MANTIS MERCADER, NORMAN H. BEAMER, and STEVEN M. AMUNDSON, Administrative Patent Judges. MANTIS MERCADER, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL Appeal 2016-002174 Application 12/890,167 STATEMENT OF CASE Appellants appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from a rejection of claims 1—4, 7—9, 11—14, 17, and 18. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). We affirm. THE INVENTION The claimed invention is directed to anonymous web call processing, in which an application web server prompts a calling party to initiate a web call, queries a charging server for a tariff rate associated with the anonymous web call to the specified called party, renders the tariff rate to the calling party, and prompts the calling party to confirm initiation of the anonymous web call to the specified called party. Abstract. Claim 1, reproduced below, is illustrative of the claimed subject matter: 1. A method for processing web calls, the method comprising: using a server to register a calling party with the server including: obtaining a prepaid or postpaid account established by the calling party with a service provider associated with a web application, and registering a first ID identifying the calling party and data provided by the calling party for paying for web calls initiated by the calling party via the prepaid or postpaid account; using the server to prompt the calling party to initiate a web call to a called party via the web application; obtaining from the calling party a different, second ID for indication of the calling party to the called party in the web call; using the server to receive a selection indication from the calling party indicating a desire to initiate the web call to the called party; using the server to query a charging server for information concerning a cost for connecting the web call through the server; using the server to receive the information; 2 Appeal 2016-002174 Application 12/890,167 using the server to provide the information to the calling party and to prompt the calling party to confirm initiation of the web call to the called party via the web application; using the server to connect the web call, causing an indication of the calling party by the second ID to the called party; and using the server to charge the prepaid or postpaid account established by the calling party according to the information after the web call is completed. REFERENCES The prior art relied upon by the Examiner in rejecting the claims on appeal is: Leipow US 6,148,067 Nov. 14,2000 Zazza US 2009/0010401 A1 Jan. 8, 2009 Kapelushnik US 2010/0203863 A1 Aug. 12, 2010 THE REJECTION The Examiner made the following rejection: Claims 1—4, 7—9, 11—14, 17, and 18 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Kapelushnik in view of Leipow and further in view of Zazza. ISSUE The pivotal issue is whether the Examiner erred in finding that the combination of Kapelushnik, Leipow and Zazza teaches or suggests the limitations of: registering a first ID identifying the calling party . . . obtaining from the calling party a different, second ID for indication of the calling party to the called party in the web call; . . . using the server to charge the prepaid or postpaid account established by the calling party according to the information after the web call is completed as recited in claim 1. 3 Appeal 2016-002174 Application 12/890,167 ANALYSIS Appellants argue that claims 1, 8, and 11 involve registering or obtaining a first ID, a second ID and data provided by the calling party for paying for web calls initiated by the calling party (App. Br. 11). In particular, claim 1 recites: registering a first ID identifying the calling party . . . obtaining from the calling party a different, second ID for indication of the calling party to the called party in the web call; . . . using the server to charge the prepaid or postpaid account established by the calling party according to the information after the web call is completed (see claim 1). Appellants argue Leipow does not register or obtain a first ID, a second ID and data provided by the calling party for paying for web calls initiated by the calling party as per independent claims 1, 8, and 11 (App. Br. 13). According to Appellants, the second ID in Leipow (at SI010 in Fig. 5) is the “other party’s ID” (see App. Br. 13, citing Leipow col. 5,11. 10—13). We do not agree with Appellants’ argument. The Examiner finds, and we agree, that under broadest reasonable interpretation, Figure 7 of Leipow teaches in step S2006 the first party’s phone number (i.e., registering first user ID) and in step S2008 the first party’s user ID (i.e., registering second user ID) (Ans. 3; Final Act. 4; Leipow Fig. 5 and Fig. 7). Leipow teaches that the bridge processor reads first the user phone number and then reads the user ID and registers a first ID (i.e., phone number) and second ID (i.e., anonymous ID) (Final Act. 4, citing Fig. 5; Fig. 5’s description at column 5 lines 3—8 states: “the voice bridge processor 308 reads the user’s telephone number entered in the display area 404 and then goes to step SI008 ... the voice bridge processor 308 reads the ID of the user 102 .. . when the user 4 Appeal 2016-002174 Application 12/890,167 102 selected the anonymous voice communication feature”). Leipow further teaches that the users can select a method for paying for the anonymous voice communication (Ans. 3; Leipow col. 7,11. 49-57). Appellants further argue that claim 1 recites that the queried information concerns the cost for connecting the web call through the server (App. Br. 14—15). Appellants in particular assert that the charge determiner of Kapelushnik does not tell the calling party the charge rate or any other information concerning the cost for connecting a call in advance (App. Br. 15). We do not agree. The Examiner finds, and we agree, that Kapelushnik teaches “requesting, by an originating device, to connect with a mobile telephony” and “determining the charge required to permit the connection” (Kapelushnik para. 20; Ans. 4). The Examiner further finds that the determined charge of connection (i.e., claimed cost for connecting) will be delivered to the user and the user will either accept the charge or reject it (see Kapelushnik para. 20; Ans. 4). Accordingly, we agree with the Examiner’s conclusion that Kapelushnik teaches that “the user will request from the network a connection service, which will cause the network to send information to the user regarding the charge or cost” for the connection requested, and thereby teaches the disputed limitation (Ans. 4). Appellants further argue that Kapelushnik (para. 20) and Zazza (Figs. 32 and 33 and para. 66; Final Act. 7) do not disclose or in any way suggest obtaining a prepaid or postpaid account associated with an application provider to be charged for anonymous web calling by the calling party (App. Br. 18). Appellants assert that Kapelushnik (para. 20) does not disclose a prepaid or postpaid account associated with an application provider to be 5 Appeal 2016-002174 Application 12/890,167 charged for anonymous web calling and Zazza (Figs. 32, 33 and para. 66) describes entry of credit card information, but does not teach obtaining a prepaid or postpaid account from a calling party associated with an application provider to be charged for anonymous web calling as claimed (App. Br. 18). We do not agree with Appellants’ argument. We agree with the Examiner that the claims require the account created for users can either be postpaid or prepaid accounts (Ans. 5). The Examiner finds, and we agree, that Zazza teaches at least one server farm 12, 14, 32 (see Zazza Fig. 1 and para. 54; Ans. 5). Zazza teaches registering users as members of a service and creating paid membership for paid members or free membership; which is performed through a web site (see Zazza paras. 11, 54, and 55; Ans. 5). Zazza teaches billing the paid member based on the services provided and membership information (see Zazza paras. 11,55, 59, 70; Ans. 5). Thus, we agree with the Examiner’s finding that Zazza teaches creating a prepaid or postpaid account through a server (Ans. 5). Accordingly we affirm the Examiner’s rejection of claims 1, 8, and 11, and for the same reasons the rejections of claims 2—4, 7, 9, 12—14, 17, and 18. CONCLUSION The Examiner did not err in finding that the combination of Kapelushnik, Leipow and Zazza teaches or suggests the limitations of: registering a first ID identifying the calling party . . . obtaining from the calling party a different, second ID for indication of the calling party to the called party in the web call; . . . using the server to charge the prepaid or postpaid account established by 6 Appeal 2016-002174 Application 12/890,167 the calling party according to the information after the web call is completed as recited in claim 1. DECISION For the above reasons, the Examiner’s rejection of claims 1—4, 7—9, 11—14, 17, and 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)(l)(iv). AFFIRMED 7 Copy with citationCopy as parenthetical citation