Ex Parte Hameleers et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Apr 24, 2014

10595781 (P.T.A.B. Apr. 24, 2014)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
____________________

BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
____________________

Ex parte HEINO HAMELEERS and
FRANK HUNDSCHEIDT
____________________

Appeal 2012-000126
Application 10/595,781
Technology Center 2400
____________________

Before JEAN R. HOMERE, DEBRA K. STEPHENS, and
DANIEL N. FISHMAN, Administrative Patent Judges.

STEPHENS, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL

Appeal 2012-000126
Application 10/595,781

2
STATEMENT OF CASE
Appellants appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from a final rejection of
claims 19, 21-23, and 25-28. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
Claims 1-18, 20, and 24 have been cancelled.
We AFFIRM.

Introduction
According to Appellants, the claims are directed for a method and
node forproviding multimedia information to a calling party at call set up.
Multimedia information related to a calling party is presented to a user of a
called party’s terminal MS-B and multimedia information related to a called
party is presented to a user of a calling party’s terminal MS-A. (Abstract).

Exemplary Claim
Claim 19, reproduced below, is representative of the claimed subject
matter:
19. A method, in a telecommunications network, of
providing multimedia information associated with called party
terminal to a calling party terminal, the method, performed by a
core network node, comprising the steps of:

retrieving subscriber data of the called party, wherein the
subscriber data comprises a demand for presenting the
multimedia information,

receiving in the core network node a call set up message
comprising an identification of the called party,

Appeal 2012-000126
Application 10/595,781

3
recognizing, according to the subscriber data and the received
identification of the called party, the demand for providing the
multimedia information, and

sending a network address or Universal Resource Locator
(URL) to the calling party terminal for retrieving the
multimedia information.

REFERENCES
Heinonen US 6,671,370 B1 Dec. 30, 2003
Choe
Nguyen
US 2004/0114732 A1
US 2004/0120477 A1
June 17, 2004
June 24, 2004

REJECTIONS
The Examiner made the following rejections:

(1) Claims 19, 21, 23, 25, 27, and 28 stand rejected under 35
U.S.C. §103(a) as being unpatentable over Choe and Heinonen (Ans. 4-12).
(2) Claims 22 and 26 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. §103(a) as
being unpatentable over Choe, Heinonen, and Nguyen (Ans. 12-13).

We have only considered those arguments Appellants actually raised
in the Briefs. Arguments Appellants could have made but chose not to make
in the Briefs have not been considered and are deemed to be waived. See 37
C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(1)(vii)(2011).

Appeal 2012-000126
Application 10/595,781

4

ISSUE 1
35 U.S.C. § 103(a): Claims 19, 21, 23, 25, 27, and 28
Appellants assert their invention is not obvious over Choe and
Heinonen because the combination does not teach the limitations as recited
in independent claim 19 (App. Br. 5-8). Specifically, Appellants contend
Choe does not teach the “demand” is added to subscriber data (App. Br. 7).
Additionally, Appellants argue Heinonen does not teach sending a URL to
the calling party terminal but instead sending a URL to the called party.
Thus, the issue presented by these arguments is:
Issue 1: Has the Examiner erred in finding the combination of Choe
and Heinonen teaches or suggests:
retrieving subscriber data of the called party, wherein the
subscriber data comprises a demand for presenting the multimedia
information;
. . .
recognizing, according to the subscriber data and the received
identification of the called party, the demand for providing the
multimedia information, and
sending a network address or Universal Resource Locator
(URL) to the calling party terminal for retrieving the multimedia
information

as recited in independent claim 19?

ANALYSIS
Appellants contend Choe teaches means for a subscriber to
personalize a ringback tone for playback to a caller (App. Br. 6). Indeed,
according to Appellants, Choe’s disclosure of ringback tones, modification
Appeal 2012-000126
Application 10/595,781

5
of ringback tones, and delivery of ringback tones applies to a called
party/subscriber and these functions are performed by the called
party/subscriber (App. Br. 6). Appellants further argue Choe discloses
identifying a calling party, determining if a called party is a subscriber,
determining if the calling party is in the subscriber’s account information,
and, if so, providing a ringback tone based on calling party specific
information in the account (id.). Appellants assert the Examiner finds Choe
discloses the “demand” is added to the service subscriber data at the MCT
server while the claim recites the subscriber data comprises a demand (App.
Br. 7).
Appellants additionally argue Choe teaches a calling party being
identified, the PRBT system accessing the Internet Data Center (IDC) to get
message settings associated with the calling party by the called party, the
telephone service provider retrieving ringback messages, and playing the
retrieved ringback messages to the calling party (App. Br. 7). Thus,
Appellants contend, Choe does not teach checking the subscriber data and
sending a URL to the calling party to retrieve multimedia information (App.
Br. 8).
We are not persuaded by Appellants’ arguments. Initially, we agree
with the Examiner the message settings taught by Choe teach a demand
because “the message setting is what indicates to the IDC to deliver the
personalized ring back messages [(multimedia information)] to the calling
party” (Ans. 14; see also Ans. 15). Appellants have not presented sufficient
argument or evidence to persuade us of error in the Examiner’s findings.
Further, we agree with the Examiner the subscriber data (the subscriber
Appeal 2012-000126
Application 10/595,781

6
account information) includes the message setting (id.). Therefore, we are
persuaded Choe teaches “retrieving subscriber data of the called party,
wherein the subscriber data comprises a demand for presenting the
multimedia information” and “recognizing, according to the subscriber data
and the received identification of the called party, the demand for providing
the multimedia information.”
Appellants additionally argue Heinonen discloses the recipient
handset sends the information to the calling party, not the other way around
as recited in claim 19 (App. Br. 8). Therefore, Appellants contend Heinonen
does not disclose sending a URL to the calling party (id.).
We are not persuaded. We agree with the Examiner that Heinonen
teaches sending a URL from one device to another device to allow the
receiving device to access or retrieve a data file (Ans. 16). Moreover, we
emphasize, as did the Examiner, Heinonen is relied upon for its teaching that
it is well known in the art to send a URL to a device to allow access or
retrieval of a data file and does not need to be bodily incorporated into Choe
to show obviousness (id.).
Therefore, we agree the combination of Choe and Heinonen teaches
“sending a network address or Universal Resource Locator (URL) to the
calling party terminal for retrieving the multimedia information.”
Accordingly, we are not persuaded the Examiner erred in finding the
combination of Choe and Heinonen teaches or suggests the limitations as
recited in independent claim 19 and commensurately recited independent
claims 23, 27, and 28, not separately argued. Dependent claims 21 and 25,
also not separately argued, fall with their respective independent claims.
Appeal 2012-000126
Application 10/595,781

7
Therefore, the Examiner did not err in rejecting claims 19, 21, 23, 25, 27,
and 28 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) for obviousness over Choe and Heinonen.

ISSUE 2
35 U.S.C. § 103(a): Claims 22 and 26
Appellants assert their invention is not obvious over Choe, Heinonen,
and Nguyen because Nguyen teaches routing messages through a signal
transfer point and not sending multimedia information using a packet
switched connection (App. Br. 8-9).
The issue presented by this argument is:
Issue 2: Has the Examiner erred in concluding the combination of
Choe, Heinonen, and Nguyen teaches or suggests “providing multimedia
information wherein the call set up message is appropriate for setting up a
circuit switched call and the multimedia information is provided using a
packet switched connection” as recited in claim 22?

ANALYSIS
Appellants argue Nguyen discloses routing communication requests
between the various elements; however, not sending multimedia information
using a packet switched connection (id.). According to Appellants,
multimedia information is not signaling information and does not travel over
signal bearers (App. Br. 9). Moreover, Appellants assert, the Examiner cited
portions of Nguyen as disclosing the recited limitation; however, Appellants
contend the cited disclosure teaches signaling or communication request
Appeal 2012-000126
Application 10/595,781

8
traffic is routed by the local signal transfer point whereas the data traffic
(multimedia information) is not (id.).
We are not persuaded. Instead, we agree with the Examiner’s
findings and emphasize the following. Specifically, we agree with the
Examiner’s finding that Nguyen teaches a customer using a phone to
communicate with a voice switch which communicates with the local signal
transfer point – a packet switch connection (Ans. 17). Appellants have not
persuaded us the Examiner’s findings are in error.
Accordingly, we are not persuaded the Examiner erred in finding the
combination of Choe, Heinonen, and Nguyen teaches or suggests the
limitations as recited in claims 22 and 26. Therefore, we sustain the
rejection of claims 22 and 26 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) for obviousness over
Choe, Heinonen, and Nguyen.

DECISION
The Examiner’s rejection of claims 19, 21, 23, 25, 27, and 28 under
35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Choe and Heinonen is
affirmed.
The Examiner’s rejection of claims 22 and 26 under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a) as being unpatentable over Choe, Heinonen, and Nguyen is
affirmed.

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).
Appeal 2012-000126
Application 10/595,781

9

AFFIRMED

tj