Ex Parte Chang et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Sep 28, 2016

13040336 (P.T.A.B. Sep. 28, 2016)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE
13/040,336 03/04/2011
25537 7590 09/30/2016
VERIZON
PA TENT MANAGEMENT GROUP
1320 North Court House Road
9th Floor
ARLINGTON, VA 22201-2909
FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
Sujin Catherine Chang
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
ATTORNEY DOCKET NO. CONFIRMATION NO.
20100803 2712
EXAMINER
BELETE, BERHANU D
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2468
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
09/30/2016 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):
patents@verizon.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte SUJIN CATHERINE CHANG, ELLIOT G. EICHEN,
LEEN. GOODMAN, and PUNITA MISHRA
Appeal2015-005560
Application 13/040,336
Technology Center 2400
Before ALLEN R. MacDONALD, ROBERT E. NAPPI, and
KAMRAN JIV ANI, Administrative Patent Judges.
NAPPI, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
This is a decision on appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Final
Rejection of claims 26 through 28, 30 through 37, and 39 through 45.
We reverse.
Appeal2015-005560
Application 13/040,336
fNVENTION
The invention is directed to a mobile device which can be used with a
docking station that can be connected to a voice over IP (VoIP) network. If
the mobile device is docked, the device notifies a call handling node in a
cellular network to forward calls destine for the cellular telephone number to
the VoIP number at a VoIP call server. See Abstract. Claim 1 is
representative of the invention and reproduced below:
1. A mobile device, comprising:
a memory configured to store a Voice over Internet
Protocol (VoIP) client application;
a docking station interface configured to interface with a
docking port of a docking station, wherein the docking station
connects to a VoIP network; and
a processing unit configured to execute the VoIP client
application to:
determine whether the mobile device is docked
with the docking station, wherein the mobile device is
capable of receiving calls to a cellular telephone number
and calls to a VoIP telephone number,
notify, via the docking station interface if the
mobile device is determined to be docked with the
docking station, a call handling node in a cellular
network to forward incoming calls destined for the
mobile device's cellular telephone number to a proxy
telephone number at a VoIP call server in the VoIP
network, wherein the proxy telephone number is different
than the cellular telephone number and the VoIP
telephone number,
receive, via the docking station interface, a call
forwarded from the VoIP call server to the VoIP
telephone number via the VoIP network, wherein the
VoIP call server uses the proxy telephone number to
identify the VoIP telephone number based on a table
2
Appeal2015-005560
Application 13/040,336
look-up and wherein the call was originally destined for
the cellular telephone number.
REJECTIONS AT ISSUE
The Examiner has rejected claims 26, 28, 30, 31, 35 through 37, and
39 through 45 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Shmunis (US
2011/0053643 Al; March 3, 2011) and LaBauve et al. (US 2006/0229101
Al; October 12, 2006). Final Act. 4--14. 1
The Examiner has rejected claim 27 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
unpatentable over Shmunis, LaBauve, and Tseng (US 2011/0098087 Al;
April 28, 2011). Final Act. 14--15.
The Examiner has rejected claims 32 through 34 under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a) as unpatentable over Shmunis, LaBauve, and Huslak et al. (US
2009/0097629 Al; April 16, 2009). Final Act. 15-16.
i\.Ni\L YSIS
Appellants argue the Examiner's rejection of independent claims 26,
3 6, and 40 is in error as the combination of the references do not teach
determining whether the mobile device is docked with a docking station, and
notifying via the docking station a call handling node in a cellular network to
forward incoming calls destined for the mobile device's cellular telephone
number to a proxy telephone number at a VoIP call server in the VoIP
network. App. Br. 9-19. In response to Appellants' arguments the
1 Throughout this Decision we refer to the Appeal Brief (filed August 25,
2014) ("Appeal Br."), Reply Brief (filed May 4, 2015) ("Reply Br."), Final
Office Action (mailed January 31, 2014) ("Final Act."), and the Examiner's
Answer (mailed March 2, 2015) ("Ans.").
3
Appeal2015-005560
Application 13/040,336
Examiner finds that Shmunis teaches a mobile device that, when connected
to a docking station, is capable of receiving calls from a cellular telephone
number and to a VoIP number. Ans. 16. The Examiner also finds Shmunis
discloses a notification that instructs a call handling node to forward
incoming calls destined for the mobile device's cellular telephone number to
a proxy. Ans. 16-17 (citing Shmunis, paras. 35, 36, 51, 55, 62).
Additionally, the Examiner cites to LaBauve as disclosing a call handling
node forwarding incoming calls destined for the mobile device's cellular
telephone number to a proxy telephone number for a VoIP call server. Final
Act. 3 (citing LaBauve, paras. 10, 15-19).
We have reviewed the teaching of both Shmunis and LaBauve and do
not find that either of the references teach forwarding incoming calls
destined for the mobile device's telephone number to a proxy server for a
VoIP call server as recited in each of independent claims 26, 36, and 40.
The cited section of Shmunis does not discuss forwarding a telephone
number as claimed, and the cited sections of LaBauve deal with redirecting
outgoing calls, not incoming calls. Accordingly, we do not sustain the
Examiner's rejection of independent claims 26, 36, and 40.
The Examiner has not shown that the additional references used in the
rejections of the dependent claims make up for the deficiencies in the
rejection of claims 26, 36, and 40. Thus, we similarly do not sustain the
Examiner's rejection of claims 27, 28, 30 through 35, 37, 39, and 41 through
45.
4
Appeal2015-005560
Application 13/040,336
DECISION
The decision of the Examiner to reject claims 26 through 28, 30
through 37, and 39 through 45 is reversed.
REVERSED
5