Ex parte Gammino

Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences

Apr 16, 1998

08200945 (B.P.A.I. Apr. 16, 1998)

Application for patent filed February 23, 1994. According1
to applicant, the application is a continuation of Application
08/042,160, filed April 2, 1993, which is a continuation of
Application 07/911,115, filed July 9, 1992.
1
THIS OPINION WAS NOT WRITTEN FOR PUBLICATION
The opinion in support of the decision being entered today
(1) was not written for publication in a law journal and
(2) is not binding precedent of the Board.
Paper No. 46
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
_____________
BEFORE THE BOARD OF PATENT APPEALS
AND INTERFERENCES
_____________
Ex parte JOHN R. GAMMINO
_____________
Appeal No. 97-1200
Application 08/200,9451
______________
ON BRIEF
_______________
Before THOMAS, HAIRSTON, and FLEMING, Administrative Patent
Judges.
HAIRSTON, Administrative Patent Judge.
Appeal No. 97-1200
Application No. 08/200,945
2
DECISION ON APPEAL
This is an appeal from the final rejection of claims 26
through 30. In a first Amendment After Final (paper number 22),
claim 29 was amended, and in a second Amendment After Final
(paper number 28), claims 29 and 30 were amended. According to
the examiner (paper number 29), the latter amendment had the
effect of overcoming the indefiniteness rejection. In a letter
(paper number 45) requesting withdrawal of the request for oral
hearing, appellant requested that the appeal of claim 27 be
withdrawn. In view of the withdrawal of the appeal of claim 27,
the only claims that remain before us on appeal are claims 26 and
28 through 30.
The disclosed invention relates to a telecommunications
method and apparatus for evaluating a third plurality of dialing
signals in a dialing sequence to determine whether the dialing
signals are located in the dialing sequence to accomplish
international dialing. If the third plurality of dialing signals
are located in a position for international dialing, then the
telecommunications apparatus prevents the establishment of an
international telephone call.
Appeal No. 97-1200
Application No. 08/200,945
Although FCC Regulations are not listed in the references2
of record, the examiner does, however, discuss them in the
grounds of the rejection.
3
Claim 26 is illustrative of the claimed invention, and it
reads as follows:
26. Telecommunications apparatus for selectively preventing
establishment of a telephone call to a telephone number having a
central office exchange code, said telecommunications apparatus
being capable of receiving a transmitted dialing sequence which
includes a first plurality of dialing signals, followed by a
second plurality of dialing signals followed by a third plurality
of dialing signals, wherein said telephone call is placed through
a telecommunications switch, said telecommunications apparatus
comprising:
means for receiving said dialing sequence prior to receiving
said central office exchange code;
means for evaluating said third plurality of dialing signals
and for preventing said telecommunications switch from
establishing said telephone call if
said evaluated third plurality of dialing signals are
determined to a) be in a location in said dialing sequence to
accomplish international dialing, and b) be respective
predetermined signals which are used for international dialing
irrespective of said second plurality of dialing signals.
The reference relied on by the examiner in the remaining
rejection is:
Bimonte et al. (Bimonte) 4,577,066 Mar. 18, 1986
Claims 26 and 28 through 30 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103 as being unpatentable over Bimonte.2
Appeal No. 97-1200
Application No. 08/200,945
A terminal disclaimer (paper number 23) has been filed3
disclaiming the terminal part of the statutory term of any patent
granted for the subject application that would extend beyond the
termination date of any patent issuing from the related
application.
4
Reference is made to the briefs and the answers for the
respective positions of the appellant and the examiner.
OPINION
In appellant’s co-pending Application 08/186,820 (Appeal
No. 97-4150), the Board in a decision dated March 12, 1998
reversed the prior art rejections of the claims on appeal. The
prior art rejection of claims based upon the teachings of Bimonte
and FCC Regulations was reversed because “Bimonte and the FCC
Regulations neither teach nor would they have suggested the
prevention of international calls based upon a determination of
specific digits in a dialing sequence” (Decision, page 9).
Inasmuch as the claims presently before us are directed to the
same international call prevention based upon a determination of3
a third plurality of dialing signals in a dialing sequence, the
obviousness rejection of claims 26 and 28 through 30 is reversed.
It is not necessary that we consider appellant’s evidence of
secondary considerations because the examiner has not satisfied
Appeal No. 97-1200
Application No. 08/200,945
5
the initial burden of establishing a prima facie case of
obviousness.
DECISION
The decision of the examiner rejecting claims 26 and 28
through 30 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 is reversed.
REVERSED
JAMES D. THOMAS )
Administrative Patent Judge )
)
)
) BOARD OF PATENT
KENNETH W. HAIRSTON ) APPEALS AND
Administrative Patent Judge ) INTERFERENCES
)
)
)
MICHAEL R. FLEMING )
Administrative Patent Judge )

Appeal No. 97-1200
Application No. 08/200,945
6
Ratner and Prestia
500 North Gulph Road
P.O. Box 980
Valley Forge, PA 19482