Ex Parte Gore et alDownload PDFPatent Trial and Appeal BoardDec 19, 201612500533 (P.T.A.B. Dec. 19, 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. 12/500,533 07/09/2009 Michelle Gore 0369-US-01 2513 83579 7590 12/21/2016 LEVEL 3 COMMUNICATIONS, LLC Attn: Patent Docketing 1025 Eldorado Blvd. Broomfield, CO 80021 EXAMINER MOHAMMED, ASSAD ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 2651 NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE 12/21/2016 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): patent, docketing @ leve!3. com PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07) UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD Ex parte MICHELLE GORE and JOSE ANTONIO GONZALEZ Appeal 2016-002432 Application 12/500,5331 Technology Center 2600 Before ROBERT E. NAPPI, CARL L. SILVERMAN, and SCOTT B. HOWARD, Administrative Patent Judges. HOWARD, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL Appellants appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Final Rejection of claims 1—15, which constitute all of the claims pending in this application. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). We reverse. 1 Appellants identify Level 3 Communications, LLC as the real party in interest. Br. 4. Appeal 2016-002432 Application 12/500,533 THE INVENTION The disclosed and claimed invention is directed methods and systems for “identifying penalty costs generated in response to setting up calls in a network and determining one or more reasons for the penalty costs.” Abstract. Claim 1, reproduced below, is illustrative of the claimed subject matter: 1. A computer-implemented method for analyzing penalty costs, the method comprising: retrieving call detail record (CDR) call setup data entries for one or more calls having associated penalty costs; linking selected attribute values of the CDR call setup data entries to supplemental data; generating interim analysis values associated with each supplemented CDR call setup data entry; and based on the interim analysis values, generating a reason code for each CDR call setup data entry, wherein the reason code indicates a reason for the associated penalty cost. REFERENCES The prior art relied upon by the Examiner as evidence in rejecting the claims on appeal is: Farhat et al. Kalyanpur et al. D’Eletto Zoldi et al. Barsness et al. US 2001/0034704 Al US 6,359,976 B1 US 2005/0094623 Al US 2007/0036309 Al US 2009/0138764 Al Oct. 25, 2001 Mar. 19, 2002 May 5, 2005 Feb. 15,2007 May 28, 2009 2 Appeal 2016-002432 Application 12/500,533 REJECTIONS Claims 1—5 and ll2 stand rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Farhat in view of Kalyanpur and Barsness. Final Act. 4—9. Claims 12 and 13 stand rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Farhat in view of Kalyanpur, Barsness, and Zoldi. Final Act. 9—10. Claims 6—93 stand rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Farhat in view of Barsness. Final Act. 10—12. Claim 10 stands rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Farhat in view of Barsness and Zoldi. Final Act. 12. Claims 14 and 15 stand rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Farhat in view of Kalyanpur, Barsness, and D’Eletto. Final Act. 12—13. ANALYSIS We have reviewed the Examiner’s rejection in light of Appellants’ arguments that the Examiner erred. In reaching this decision, we have considered all evidence presented and all arguments made by Appellants. We are persuaded by Appellants’ arguments regarding claims 1—15. Art is analogous when it is: (1) from the same field of endeavor as the claimed invention; or (2) reasonably pertinent to the particular problem 2 The Office Action contains a typographical error and identifies claims 12 and 13 as being rejected on this ground. Compare Final Act. 4, with Final Act. 9. 3 The Office Action contains a typographical error and identifies claim 10 as being rejected on this ground. Compares Final Act. 10, with Final Act. 12. 3 Appeal 2016-002432 Application 12/500,533 faced by the inventor, if the art is not from the same field of endeavor. In re Bigio, 381 F.3d 1320, 1325—26 (Fed. Cir. 2004). In order to be “reasonably pertinent,” art must “logically [] commend[] itself’ to an inventor’s attention in considering his problem. In re ICON Health and Fitness, Inc., 496 F.3d 1374, 1379-80 (Fed. Cir. 2007) (citing In re Clay, 966 F.2d 656, 659 (Fed. Cir. 1992)). A rejection under 35 U.S.C. § 103 cannot be based on non- analogous art. Innovention Toys, LLC, v. MCA Entertainment, Inc., 637 F.3d 1314, 1321 (Fed. Cir. 2011); Bigio, 381 F.3d at 1325; Clay, 966 F.2d at 658. All of the rejections of the claims are based, inter alia, on the claims being unpatentable over Barsness. Final Act. 4—13. Appellants argue because Barsness is neither in the same field of endeavor as the claimed invention nor is it reasonably pertinent to the particular problem faced by the inventor, Barsness is non-analogous art. Br. 9—11. More specifically, Appellants argue the field of endeavor of the instant application “is telecommunications and call routing, and more specifically, route-specific cost calculations incurred during the setup of each individual call.” Br. 9—10 (citing Spec.^l 2—3). On the other hand, Appellants argue, Bamess relates to “computing systems and, more specifically, ‘managing temporary resources within a data processing environment.’ Br. 9 (citing Bamess 12). Appellants further argue Bamess is not reasonably pertinent to the particular problem faced by the inventor. Compare Br. 11 (“the primary problem addressed by Barsness is how to bill for a rented standby resource in computing environment”), with 11—12 (“In contrast, problems faced by the Appellants include, for example, ‘whether, why, and to what degree, penalty costs are being incurred [in call routing].”’ (citing Spec. 13)). 4 Appeal 2016-002432 Application 12/500,533 Although the Examiner relies on Barsness in the rejection, the Examiner did not make any fact finding as to why Barsness is analogous art. Accordingly, on the current record the Examiner has not provided an adequate basis for finding Barsness is analogous art, nor has the Examiner addressed Appellants’ arguments that Barsness is not analogous art.4 As such, on this record, we cannot sustain the rejections of claims 1—13. Because we agree with this one dispositive arguments advanced by Appellants, we need not, and do not, reach the merits of Appellants’ other arguments. DECISION For the above reasons, we reverse the Examiner’s decisions rejecting claims 1—15. REVERSED 4 To be clear, we have not determined whether or not Barsness is analogous prior art. Our reversal is based solely on the absence of fact findings on the current record. 5 Copy with citationCopy as parenthetical citation