Ex Parte GallantDownload PDFBoard of Patent Appeals and InterferencesAug 11, 200910101389 (B.P.A.I. Aug. 11, 2009) Copy Citation UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE ____________________ BEFORE THE BOARD OF PATENT APPEALS AND INTERFERENCES ____________________ Ex parte JOHN KENNETH GALLANT ____________________ Appeal 2008-0010281 Application 10/101,389 Technology Center 2400 ____________________ Decided: August 11, 2009 ____________________ Before LANCE LEONARD BARRY, JEAN R. HOMERE, and CAROLYN D. THOMAS, Administrative Patent Judges. HOMERE, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL 1 Filed on March 16, 2002. The real party in interest is Verizon Communications, Inc. Appeal 2008-001028 Application 10/101,389 2 I. STATEMENT OF THE CASE Appellant appeals under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the final rejection of claims 1 through 16. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). We affirm. Appellants’ Invention As shown in Figures 2 and 3, Appellant invented a method and system for establishing a communication session between a calling user (210, 216) and a destination user (220). (Spec. 16, [para. 0061].) In particular, upon receiving from the calling user (210, 216) a request for a communication session including a symbol designating a destination user (220), a proxy server (230) forwards the request to a location server (240), which maps the symbol to a corresponding user profile in an alias table (320). (Id. Para. 0062, 0063, 0068, and 0072.) Illustrative Claim Independent claim 1 further illustrates the invention. It reads as follows: 1. In a communications system, a method for controlling the establishment of a communication session with a party comprising: receiving a first user identification symbol specifying the party; mapping the first user identification symbol to an index identifying user profile information corresponding to the party; using the index, accessing the user profile information; and controlling the establishment of the communication session as a Appeal 2008-001028 Application 10/101,389 3 function of the user profile information corresponding to the party. Prior Art Relied Upon The Examiner relies on the following prior art as evidence of unpatentability: Nadeau 6,240,449 May 29, 2001 Rejection on Appeal The Examiner rejected the claims on appeal as follows: Claims 1 through 16 stand rejected as being anticipated by Nadeau. Appellant’s Contentions Appellant contends that Nadeau does not anticipate claims 1 through 16. (App. Br. 5-36, Reply Br. 2-32.) In particular, Appellant argues that Nadeau does not teach mapping a first user identification symbol to a corresponding user profile in an information index, as recited in independent claim 1. (App. Br. 6-11, Reply Br. 2-6.) Examiner’s Findings The Examiner finds that Nadeau’s disclosure of an Automatic Call Service (ACS) system that matches a pseudo address designating a destination subscriber with a corresponding IP address in the subscriber’s directory teaches the cited limitations. (Ans. 11-12.) Appeal 2008-001028 Application 10/101,389 4 II. ISSUE Thus, the principal issue before us is whether Appellant has shown that the Examiner erred in finding that Nadeau’s disclosure teaches the claim limitations, as set forth above. III. FINDINGS OF FACT The following Findings of Fact (FF) are shown by a preponderance of the evidence. Nadeau 1. Nadeau discloses an Automatic Call Setup (ACS) system for establishing a communication session across various network domains between different subscribers. (Col. 1, ll. 6-10, col. 6, ll. 16-20.) 2. Prior to using the ACS system, each subscriber builds a directory of the individuals he /she wishes to communicate with. Each entry in the directory includes the individual’s directory number (DN), and the individual’s pseudo address. The subscriber directories and the subscriber service profiles (conditions and events to process a caller’s call, e.g. time of day, type of communication) are stored in the subscriber database (204). (Col. 3, l. 63-col. 4, l. 6, col. 9, ll. 18-25.) 3. Each ACS subscriber is assigned a pseudo address upon registering for Internet service with the gatekeeper (118) of a particular zone. The gatekeeper (118) subsequently uses the assigned pseudo address (frequently an e-mail address) to identify a particular subscriber, as well as to fetch a corresponding IP address for the subscriber. (Col. 7, ll. 41-56.) 4. As shown in Figure 1, upon receiving from a subscriber a communication session request including the pseudo address, which may Appeal 2008-001028 Application 10/101,389 5 consist of the e-mail address or the DN of the party to be called, the ACS service logic controller (SLC) (122) reviews a caller’s service profile in the subscriber database (204) to determine whether the request can be granted. (Col. 7, ll. 20-40.) If the called party is listed in the caller’s directory, the system routes the call according to instructions in the profile of the called party. (Col. 9, ll. 32-38.) 5. The gatekeeper (118) maps the pseudo address for a called party to a corresponding IP address found in the subscriber’s profile. If no corresponding IP address exists in the subscriber’s profile, the ACS system selects an IP address from the pool of addresses owned by the ISP. (Col. 10, ll. 31-40.) IV. PRINCIPLES OF LAW Anticipation In rejecting claims under 35 U.S.C. § 102, “[a] single prior art reference that discloses, either expressly or inherently, each limitation of a claim invalidates that claim by anticipation.” Perricone v. Medicis Pharmaceutical Corp., 432 F.3d 1368, 1375 (Fed. Cir. 2005) (citing Minn. Mining & Mfg. Co. v. Johnson & Johnson Orthopaedics, Inc., 976 F.2d 1559, 1565 (Fed. Cir. 1992)). “Anticipation of a patent claim requires a finding that the claim at issue ‘reads on’ a prior art reference.” Atlas Powder Co. v. IRECO, Inc., 190 F.3d 1342, 1346 (Fed Cir. 1999) (“In other words, if granting patent protection on the disputed claim would allow the patentee to exclude the public from practicing the prior art, then that claim is anticipated, regardless of whether it also covers subject matter not in the prior art.”). Appeal 2008-001028 Application 10/101,389 6 V. ANALYSIS Claim 1 Independent claim 1 requires, in relevant part, mapping a first user identification symbol to an index identifying user profile information corresponding to the party. As set forth in the Findings of Fact section, Nadeau discloses an ACS that reviews a subscriber’s directory identified by a received pseudo address, frequently an e-mail address, to retrieve a corresponding IP address if one exists. (FFs. 3, 4.) Otherwise, it selects an IP address from the address pool owned by the ISP. (FF. 5.) We find that Nadeau’s pseudo address or e-mail address is a symbol that uniquely identifies a subscriber being called. We further find that the subscriber’s directory is an index of the subscriber profile information. Additionally, we find that by retrieving from the subscriber’s directory a corresponding IP address in response to an identified subscriber’s pseudo address, Nadeau reasonably teaches mapping the pseudo address to an index identifying the user profile information corresponding to the subscriber. We therefore agree with the Examiner that Nadeau anticipates claim 1. It follows that Appellant has not shown error in the Examiner’s rejection of claim 1. Claim 2 Appellant argues that Nadeau does not teach a second user identification symbol that is mapped to the same index as the first symbol (App. Br. 11-13). We do not agree. Nadeau teaches a pseudo address that can be a subscriber’s e-mail address or the subscriber’s directory number (DN) (FFs. 3-5). In either case, the disclosed pseudo address maps to the same subscriber’s directory identified in the request for establishing a communication session. Appeal 2008-001028 Application 10/101,389 7 Claim 3 Appellant argues that Nadeau does not teach consulting a list that indicates a first user identification symbol associated with the index. (App. Br. 13-14.) We do not agree. Nadeau teaches a subscriber’s directory wherein the contents thereof are mapped to a received pseudo address to determine a corresponding IP address thereto. (FF. 2.) We find that the subscriber’s directory teaches the consulting list. Claim 4 Appellant argues that Nadeau does not teach one entry in the list to establish the relationship with a first user. (App. Br. 14-15.) We do not agree. We find that the disclosed subscriber’s directory contains at least one entry that corresponds to the pseudo address. Therefore, Nadeau teaches one entry in the subscriber’s directory to establish a relationship with the subscriber. Claims 5-9 Appellant argues that Nadeau does not teach a table that associates a plurality of identifiers (phone number, e-mail address) with a single index to map a first identifier to the index to thereby retrieve the profile of the party with which communication is being established. (App. Br. 15-26.) We do not agree. As discussed above, Nadeau teaches a pseudo address that can be the subscriber’s e-mail address or the subscriber’s directory number (DN) to access the system by phone (FFs. 3-5). In either case, the disclosed pseudo address maps to the same identified subscriber’s directory to retrieve a corresponding IP address from the subscriber’s profile. Clearly, the e-mail and DN are identifiers of the subscriber of different formats. Appeal 2008-001028 Application 10/101,389 8 Claims 10-11 Appellant argues that Nadeau does not teach a profile that includes different types of communications handling procedures associated with the identifiers. (App. Br. 26-28) We do not agree. Nadeau teaches that the pseudo address for the subscriber can be an e-mail address used to access the ACS system from a network, whereas the subscriber’s directory number (DN) is used to access the ACS system from a phone. (FFs. 3-5.) In either case, the disclosed pseudo address maps to the same identified subscriber’s directory to access a corresponding IP address from the subscriber’s profile. Claim 12 Appellant argues that Nadeau does not teach enabling and disabling the first identifier. (App. Br. 27-28.) We do not agree. Nadeau teaches that the pseudo address can be a subscriber’s e-mail address or the subscriber’s directory number (DN). Nadeau also discloses that the subscriber can set up his/her profile to include or exclude desired individuals. (FF. 2.) We find that by allowing the subscriber to include or exclude certain individuals’ pseudo addresses from his/her directory, Nadeau implicitly teaches that the individual can enable or disable desired subscriber’s identifiers. Claims 13-16 Appellant reiterates the same arguments previously submitted for claims 1 through 12 above. (App. Br. 28-36.) We find these arguments unavailing for the same reasons detailed above. Appeal 2008-001028 Application 10/101,389 9 CONCLUSION OF LAW Appellant has not established that the Examiner erred in rejecting claims 1 through 16 as being anticipated under 35 U.S.C. § 102(e). DECISION We affirm the Examiner's rejection of claims 1 through 16. 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 llw VERIZON PATENT MANAGEMENT GROUP 1320 North Court House Road 9th Floor ARLINGTON VA 22201-2909 Copy with citationCopy as parenthetical citation