Ex Parte Gosselin

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Apr 28, 2017

13251604 (P.T.A.B. Apr. 28, 2017)

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.
13/251,604 10/03/2011 Mark H. Gosselin CQUI135946 4492
26389 7590 05/02/2017
rTTRTSTRNSFN OTONNOR TOHNSON KTNDNFNN PT T C EXAMINER
1201 THIRD AVENUE FANG, PAKEE
SUITE 3600
SEATTLE, WA 98101-3029 ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2642
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
05/02/2017 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):
efiling @ cojk. com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte MARK H. GOSSELIN
Appeal 2017-000750
Application 13/251,6041
Technology Center 2600
Before KRISTEN L. DROESCH, JOHN D. HAMANN, and
ALEX S. YAP, Administrative Patent Judges.
HAMANN, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
Appellant files this appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the
Examiner’s Final Rejection of claims 1—8 and 10—21. We have jurisdiction
under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We affirm.
THE CLAIMED INVENTION
Appellant’s claimed invention relates to delivering full name
information to a mobile device, including by having a terminating mobile
device open a data connection to a service control point (“SCP”), and submit
1 According to Appellant, the real party in interest is Cequint, Inc. App. Br.
1.
Appeal 2017-000750
Application 13/251,604
a query for full name information. See Abstract. Claim 1 is illustrative of
the subject matter of the appeal and is reproduced below.
1. A computer-implemented method of retrieving caller
data by code executing during execution of a call handler of a
terminating mobile device, the method comprising:
receiving, by the terminating mobile device, a call page
from a wireless network, wherein the call page is associated
with an incoming call and includes a mobile directory number
(MDN) of a calling mobile device;
transmitting, by the terminating mobile device, a query
for caller data associated with the MDN to a server over a
wireless data connection to the wireless network from which
the call page was received, wherein the server is a service
control point (SCP) server associated with a carrier of the
terminating mobile device; and
storing, by the terminating mobile device, the caller data
in a memory of the terminating mobile device.
REJECTIONS ON APPEAL
(1) The Examiner rejected claims 1—3, 7, 8, 10-13, and 15—17
under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over the combination of
Ruckart (US 2006/0072719 Al; published Apr. 6, 2006) and
Schmackpfeffer et al. (US 2011/0319061 Al; published Dec. 29, 2011)
(hereinafter “Schmackpfeffer”).
(2) The Examiner rejected claims 4—6 and 18—20 under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a) as being unpatentable over the combination of Ruckart,
Schmackpfeffer, and Nixon (US 6,584,185 Bl; issued June 24, 2003)
(hereinafter “Nixon”).
(3) The Examiner rejected claim 14 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
being unpatentable over the combination of Ruckart, Schmackpfeffer, and
Suzuki (US 2001/0027098 Al; published Oct. 4, 2001).
2
Appeal 2017-000750
Application 13/251,604
(4) The Examiner rejected claim 21 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
being unpatentable over the combination of Ruckart, Schmackpfeffer, and
Chin et al. (US 2011/0212709 Al; published Sept. 1, 2011) (hereinafter
“Chin”).
ANALYSIS
We have reviewed the Examiner’s rejections in light of Appellant’s
contentions that the Examiner erred. In reaching our decision, we consider
all evidence presented and all arguments made by Appellant.
We disagree with Appellant’s arguments and we incorporate herein
and adopt as our own the findings, conclusions, and reasons set forth by the
Examiner in (1) the October 20, 2015 Final Office Action (“Final Act.” 2—
21), (2) the January 7, 2016 Advisory Action (“Adv. Act.” 2—11), and (3) the
August 23, 2016 Examiner’s Answer (“Ans.” 2—12). We highlight and
address, however, specific findings and arguments below for emphasis.
(1) Transmitting by the terminating mobile device
Appellant argues the combination of Ruckart and Schmackpfeffer
fails to teach or suggest “transmitting, by the terminating mobile device, a
query for caller data associated with the MDN to a server over a wireless
data connection to the wireless network from which the call page was
received, wherein the server is a service control point (SCP) server
associated with a carrier of the terminating mobile device,” as recited in
claim 1. App. Br. 6; Reply Br. 5—7.
As to Ruckart, Appellant argues it “does not teach a mobile device
transmitting a query for caller data to any type server.” App. Br. 6.
Appellant also argues Ruckart’s teachings regarding a SCP server teach that
3
Appeal 2017-000750
Application 13/251,604
SCP servers “are strictly limited to data base lookup and routing services,
neither of which includes receiving queries for caller data from terminating
mobile devices.” App. Br. 7 (citing Ruckart 129); see also id. (quoting
October 13, 2015 Declaration of Ronald A Hume (hereinafter “Hume
Declaration”) 14 (“[A]n SCP does not provide, by definition, a wireless data
channel communication interface for communication with a terminating
mobile device . . . .”)).
As to Schmackpfeffer, Appellant argues it likewise “fails to disclose
or suggest a mobile device transmitting a query to an SCP server associated
with a carrier of the mobile device.” App. Br. 8. Appellant argues
Schmackpfeffer teaches transmitting a query from a mobile phone to a
server, but does not teach that the server (i) is a SCP server and (ii) is
associated with the mobile device’s carrier. App. Br. 8 (citing
Schmackpfeffer Fig. 1; || 36—37). As to being a SCP server, Appellant also
argues that Schmackpfeffer’s teachings that the server can use the SS7
protocol does not teach or suggest that the server is a SCP server. App. Br. 8
(citing Schmackpfeffer Fig. 1; || 36—37). As to being associated with the
mobile’s carrier, Appellant argues Schmackpfeffer’s server sends queries to
“‘the SS7 network for wireless telephone numbers from wireless carriers,’
thus suggesting that the query server is not itself associated with any
wireless carrier.” App. Br. 8 (citing Schmackpfeffer | 62). Appellant also
relies on the Hume Declaration to argue (i) a SCP server is “one of three
defined network elements of the SS7 telecommunications standard,” (ii) a
“SCP operating with SS7 communications does not have a data channel
interface to maintain a data connection with the wireless carrier network in
communication with a terminating mobile device,” and (iii) the “wireless
4
Appeal 2017-000750
Application 13/251,604
interface for data communications on a terminating mobile device is
typically IS95 on CDMA or ABIS on the GSM interface, so an SS7 query
from [a] handset is not possible.” App. Br. 8 (citing Hume Declaration 13).
The Examiner finds that the combination of Ruckart and
Schmackpfeffer teaches or suggests the disputed limitation. Ans. 4—6.
The Examiner finds Ruckart teaches or suggests transmitting a query for
caller data associated with the MDN from a central office’s switch to a SCP
server on the network over a data connection. See Ans. 4 (citing Ruckart
Figs. 1—3; 35—36); see also id. (citing Ruckart H 24, 29 (finding Ruckart
teaches SCP servers can be used for “data base look up and routing services
that take place prior to the logical completion of the call, i.e., the provision
of a ringing signal to the called subscriber line and ring back to the calling
subscriber”)).
As to Schmackpfeffer, the Examiner finds it teaches or suggests that a
terminating mobile device can send a query seeking the calling party’s ID
information to a server on the network using the same data network
connection as the incoming call request prior to the voice connection being
completed (i.e., the call being answered). See Ans. 4—5 (citing
Schmackpfeffer Figs. 1, 5, 10; H 8, 80—83); Final Act. 3^4 (citing
Schmackpfeffer H 8, 80-83, 108—111). The Examiner finds
Schmackpfeffer also teaches or suggests that the queried server can support
the SS7 protocol and functions to receive queries from a mobile device and
to provide information (e.g., caller ID information) to the mobile device in
response. Ans. 5—6 (citing Schmackpfeffer || 8, 36—37). The Examiner
also finds that the queried server is associated with a carrier of the
terminating mobile device. Ans. 5, 8 (citing Schmackpfeffer || 8, 36—37).
5
Appeal 2017-000750
Application 13/251,604
We agree with the Examiner’s findings, including that the combined
teachings of Ruckart and Schmackpfeffer teach, or at least suggest, the
disputed limitation. For example, we agree that Ruckart teaches or suggests
transmitting a caller ID query from a network switch to a SCP server on the
network. See Ruckart Figs. 1—3; 35—36. We also agree that
Schmackpfeffer teaches or suggests having a terminating mobile device
query a networked server using the same wireless connection as the
incoming call request prior to the user answering the call. See
Schmackpfeffer Figs. 1, 5, 10; Tflf 8, 80—83, 108—111. We also agree with
the Examiner that Schmackpfeffer teaches or suggests that the queried server
is “associated with a carrier of the terminating mobile device” under the
broadest reasonable interpretation of the phrase — for example, the server
can be queried via the wireless channel provided by the mobile’s carrier for
information about a call routed, at least in part, via the carrier, and thus, is
“associated” with the carrier. See Schmackpfeffer || 8, 36—37.
Furthermore, Schmackpfeffer’s teachings that the queried server can support
the SS7 protocol — which defines three network elements, including SCPs
(see Hume Declaration 13) — at least suggests that the queried server can
be a SCP server. See, e.g., Schmackpfeffer || 36—37.
Appellant incorrectly focuses on Ruckart and Schmackpfeffer
individually instead of addressing persuasively their combined teachings to
one of ordinary skill in the art. See In re Merck & Co. Inc., 800 F.2d 1091,
1097 (Fed. Cir. 1986) (“Non-obviousness cannot be established by attacking
references individually where the rejection is based upon the teachings of a
combination of references”); see also In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 425 (CCPA
1981) (finding the relevant inquiry is whether the claimed subject matter
6
Appeal 2017-000750
Application 13/251,604
would have been obvious to those of ordinary skill in the art in light of the
combined teachings of the references). Appellant also too narrowly focuses
on specific protocol and wireless structures rather than focusing on how one
of ordinary skill in the art would have combined Ruckart and
Schmackpfeffer’s teachings. See Keller, 642 F.2d at 425 (“Combining the
teachings of references does not involve an ability to combine their specific
structures.”); In re Nievelt, 482 F.2d 965, 968 (CCPA 1973); see also KSR
Int’l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 420 (2007) (“[I]n many cases a
person of ordinary skill will be able to fit the teachings of multiple patents
together like pieces of a puzzle.”); In re Preda, 401 F.2d 825, 826 (CCPA
1968) (“[I]t is proper to take into account not only specific teachings of the
references but also the inferences which one skilled in the art would
reasonably be expected to draw therefrom.”).
Our above reasoning and findings are also applicable to these same
arguments Appellant sets forth addressing the rejection of independent
claims 8 and 15.
(2) Teachins away
Appellant argues that Ruckart teaches away from the claimed SCP
server of claim 1 because it fails to teach “an SCP server that is capable of
receiving queries for caller data.” App. Br. 11. More specifically, Appellant
argues Ruckart teaches that “service control points are only used for data
base lookup and routing services,” rather than teaching SCPs can “be
modified to perform additional tasks (such as receiving queries for caller
data from terminating mobile devices).” App. Br. 11—12 (quoting Ruckart
129).
7
Appeal 2017-000750
Application 13/251,604
The Examiner finds, and we agree, Ruckart teaches an embodiment
where SCPs only are used for database lookup and routing, rather than
teaching away from modifying SCPs to also provide additional functionality.
See Ans. 9; see also Ruckart 129; In re Fulton, 391 F.3d 1195, 1201 (Fed.
Cir. 2004) (“The prior art’s mere disclosure of more than one alternative
does not constitute a teaching away from any of the[] [disclosed] alternatives
because such disclosure does not criticize, discredit, or otherwise discourage
the solution claimed . . . .”). Moreover, rather than teaching away, Ruckart
teaches, or at least suggests, embodiments where SCPs functionality is not
so limited. See Ruckart 129 (teaching “[i]n most local exchange carrier
networks, service control points are only used for data base look up and
routing services,” which at least suggests that some local exchange carrier
networks employ SCPs with added functionality) (emphasis added).
Our above reasoning and findings are also applicable to these same
arguments Appellant sets forth addressing the rejection of independent
claims 8 and 15.
(3) Causins the termination of the call
Appellant argues the combination of Ruckart, Schmackpfeffer, and
Chin fails to teach or suggest that “the subscriber query is received from a
network control point computing device that is holding termination of a call,
and wherein transmitting the CNAM [(caller name)] data to the network
control point computing device causes the network control point computing
device to terminate the call to the terminating mobile device,” as recited in
dependent claim 21. App. Br. 16.
As to Ruckart, Appellant begins by arguing that one of ordinary skill
in the art, in light of the Specification, would construe “network control
8
Appeal 2017-000750
Application 13/251,604
point computing device” to mean “a computing device of a service point that
‘manages signal traffic for terminating and connecting calls between carrier
networks and to their subscribers.’” Reply Br. 10-11 (citing Spec. 1,11. 7—
8). Based on this construction, Appellant argues Ruckarf s service switching
point (“SSP”) fails to teach or suggest a “network control point computing
device” because a SSP “is merely a telecommunications switch within the
Public Switched Telephone Network (PSTN),” which does not have “any
capabilities that relate to functionality for operating with ‘carrier networks.’”
Id. (citing Ruckart || 22, 24).
As to Chin, Appellant argues the Examiner incorrectly equates Chin’s
releasing of a call (i.e., ending a call after determining it should be blocked)
with the claimed terminating of a call (i.e., completing a connection to a
terminating device). App. Br. 17 (citing Spec. 5,11. 12—18 (“The network
control point 204 terminates the call to the terminating mobile device 108,
which includes transmitting the call page 208 to the terminating mobile
device 108.”); Chin claims 1, 7, 14).
The Examiner finds the combination of Ruckart, Schmackpfeffer, and
Chin teaches or suggests the disputed limitation. Ans. 11—12; Final Act. 13;
Adv. Act. 9—10. The Examiner finds Ruckart teaches or suggests that a SCP
can receive a user query (e.g., a query seeking caller ID information) from a
network control point (e.g., a switch/SSP associated with the central office
of a terminating telephone) that is holding termination of a call. See Ans.
11—12 (citing Ruckart || 33—34) (teaching, among other things, that SCP 42
receives from terminating switch 12 a request for caller ID information of a
calling party). As to Chin, the Examiner finds it teaches or suggests
releasing or terminating a call to a terminating mobile based on the results of
9
Appeal 2017-000750
Application 13/251,604
a caller ID query received by a terminating switch. Adv. Act. 9—10 (citing
Chin Fig. 4; || 7, 28—31) (finding the returned caller data “triggers a
release/termination of the call to the terminating mobile device”).
We agree with the Examiner’s findings and adopt them as our own.
For example, we agree that Ruckart teaches or suggests a SCP receiving a
subscriber query (i.e., a query for caller ID services) from a network control
point (i.e., a terminating SSP) that is holding termination of a call (i.e., the
terminating SSP does not complete the connection while obtaining the caller
ID information). See Ruckart || 33—34; Figs. 2—3). Furthermore, we find
the broadest reasonable interpretation for network control point computing
device to include Ruckart’s switch, which connects calls between parties,
including a calling party associated with one exchange and a called party
associated with another exchange. Id. We also find that Appellant does not
provide a sufficient basis to support Appellant’s proffered, narrower
construction. See Phillips v. AWH Corp., 415 F.3d 1303, 1323 (Fed. Cir.
2005) (en banc) (citations omitted) (finding although claims are to be
interpreted broadly but reasonably in light of the specification, one
nonetheless must not import limitations from the specification into the
claims); Superguide Corp. v. DirecTV Enterprises, Inc., 358 F.3d 870, 875
(Fed. Cir. 2004) (finding a particular embodiment appearing in the written
description may not be read into a claim when the claim language is broader
than the embodiment).
As to Chin, we agree with the Examiner that it teaches, or at least
suggests, releasing (i.e., not establishing the call) or terminating a call (i.e.,
completing the call connection) to a terminating mobile based on the results
of a caller ID query received by a terminating switch — for example, if
10
Appeal 2017-000750
Application 13/251,604
sufficient caller ID information (i.e., CNAM data) is received by the
terminating switch, the terminating switch would terminate the call to the
terminating mobile. See Chin Fig. 4; || 7, 28—31.
Accordingly, we agree with the Examiner that these combined
teachings, teach or suggest the disputed limitation.
CONCLUSION
Based on our findings and reasoning above, we sustain the
Examiner’s rejection of independent claims 1, 8, and 15, as well as
dependent claims 2, 3, 7, 10-13, 16, and 17, as Appellant do not provide
separate arguments for their patentability. We also sustain the Examiner’s
(i) rejection of dependent claims 4—6 and 18—20 and (ii) rejection of
dependent claim 14, as Appellant do not provide separate arguments for
their patentability. Based on our findings and reasoning above, we also
sustain the Examiner’s rejection of dependent claim 21.
DECISION
We affirm the Examiner’s decision rejecting claims 1—8 and 10—21.
No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with
this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a)(l)(iv).
AFFIRMED
11