Ex Parte Gallant

Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences

Aug 11, 2009

10101389 (B.P.A.I. Aug. 11, 2009)

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