Ex Parte Kent et al

Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences

Oct 15, 2009

10755491 (B.P.A.I. Oct. 15, 2009)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
_____________

BEFORE THE BOARD OF PATENT APPEALS
AND INTERFERENCES
_____________

Ex parte LARRY G. KENT, JR., W. TODD DANIELL,
and MARY S. ARNOFF
_____________

Appeal 2009-002848
Application 10/755,491
Technology Center 2600
______________

Decided: October 15, 2009
_______________

Before, ROBERT E. NAPPI, JOHN A. JEFFERY, and KARL D.
EASTHOM, Administrative Patent Judges.

NAPPI, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL
This is a decision on appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) of the rejection
of claims 1 through 32.
We reverse.
Appeal 2009-002848
Application 10/755,491
INVENTION
The invention is directed toward a system for internet call routing
where a called party receives notification of a call at a plurality of registered
devices and is queried as to where to route the call. See pages 3 and 4 of
Appellants’ Specification. Claim 1 is reproduced below:
1. An intelligent interactive call handling system, comprising:
a central office operable to trigger a query responsive to
receiving a call request for a called party at a called party telephone
number;
call-handling device coupled to the central office, the call-
handling device operable to receive the query, and trigger an internet
call routing query; and
an internet call routing system coupled to the call-handling
device, the internet call routing system being operable to receive the
internet call routing query, send a notification of the incoming call to
the called party at a plurality of registered communication devices that
the called party is detected to be present, the notification prompting
the called party for instruction for handling the incoming call, in
accordance with instruction from the called party that is received in
reply to the notification; and instruct the call-handling device to route
the call to the called party telephone number if no instruction is
received from the called party in reply to the notification after a set
period of time, wherein the call-handling device forwards the
instructions from the internet call routing system to the central office.

REFERENCE

Pepper US 5,930,700 Jul. 27, 1999
Balasuriya US 2003/0041048 A1 Feb. 27, 2003
Archer US 6,683,870 B1 Jan. 27, 2004
Cermak US 6,763,095 B1 Jul. 13, 2004
Reding US 2004/0264654 A1 Dec. 30, 2004

2

Appeal 2009-002848
Application 10/755,491

REJECTION AT ISSUE
The Examiner has rejected claims 1, 3 through 5, 7, 8, 10, 14 through
16, 21, 22, 24, 25, 30, and 31 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Archer in view of Pepper.
The Examiner has rejected claims 6, 9, 20, and 29 under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a) as being unpatentable over Archer in view of Pepper and Redding.
The Examiner has rejected claims 2, 11, 12, 23, and 32 under 35
U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Archer in view of Pepper and
Cermak.
The Examiner has rejected claims 13, 17, 18, 26, and 27 under 35
U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Archer in view of Pepper and
Balasuriya.
The Examiner has rejected claims 19 and 28 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a)
as being unpatentable over Archer in view of Pepper and Balasuriya and
Redding.
ISSUE
Appellants argue on pages 7 through 14 of the Appeal Brief1 that the
Examiner’s rejection of claim 1 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Archer in view of Pepper is in error. Appellants assert
that claim 1 recites that the internet call routing system sends a notification
of incoming call to the called party at a plurality of registered
communication devices prompting the called party for instructions for
handling the incoming call. Brief 8. Appellants argue that “Archer fails to

1 Throughout the opinion we refer to the Brief dated September 28, 2007.
3

Appeal 2009-002848
Application 10/755,491
teach or suggest at least sending a notification of an incoming call to a
plurality of registered communications devices.” Brief 10. Further,
Appellants argue that “Pepper describes issuing a call notification to a
subscriber’s PDA and does not disclose sending a notification to a plurality
of devices where the called party is detected to be present.” Brief 11. As
such, Appellants conclude that neither of the references teaches the claimed
feature of a call routing system. Brief 12. Appellants present similar
arguments directed to independent claims 7, 15, and 24 in the Brief.
Thus, Appellants’ contentions present us with the issue: Have
Appellants shown that the Examiner erred in finding that the combination of
Archer and Pepper teach a call routing system where notification of an
incoming call is sent to a plurality of registered communication devices that
the called party is detected to be present?2

FINDINGS OF FACT
1. Archer teaches a method for communication where call
notification is simultaneously transmitted to a plurality of
communication devices including pagers, telephones, voice
mail, and computers. Abstract.
2. In Archer’s system when a call is received a database of
telephone numbers is queried and the call notification is sent to
all numbers in the database. When the user picks up the device
the call is routed to the device the user picked up. If the user
does not pick up at one of these numbers, the call is routed to
4

Appeal 2009-002848
Application 10/755,491

another list of numbers for devices such as a pager or voice
mail. Col. 4, ll. 46-56, col. 6, ll. 33-37.
3. Pepper teaches a system that allows a subscriber to screen their
telephones calls and allows the user to direct the routing of the
call. Abstract.
4. The user of Pepper’s system has a personal digital assistant
(PDA) that stores the user’s schedule, including location,
telephone numbers at location, and priority information. This
schedule is shared with a service control module. When a call
is received, the service control module compares a priority of
the caller with a priority of the user’s location and based upon
the comparison may send a notification to the user’s PDA. In
the notification allows the user to make decisions concerning
the routing of the call. Col. 3, ll. 18-56..
5. The schedule includes telephone numbers associated with the
locations where the user is scheduled to be. These numbers are
used to present possible locations for routing of the call. If the
calls are of a high priority they are routed directly to these
numbers without notifying the user, if they are of an
intermediate priority the user is prompted for routing options.
Pepper, col. 10, ll. 37-46, col. 11, ll. 1-16.

2 Appellants additional arguments directed to claim 1 raise additional issues
which we do not reach as this issue is dispositive of the case.
5

Appeal 2009-002848
Application 10/755,491
ANALYSIS
Appellants’ arguments have persuaded us that the Examiner erred in
finding that the combination of Archer and Pepper teach a call routing
system as claimed. Claim 1 recites that the internet call routing system
sends “a notification of the incoming call to the called party at a plurality of
registered communication devices that the call party is detected to be
present, the notification prompting the called party for instructions for
handling the incoming call.” Thus, the scope of claim 1 includes that the
notification prompts the called party for routing instructions and the
notification is sent to a plurality of devices that the called party is detected to
be present. Independent claims 7, 15, and 24 include limitations which
recite similar features.
The Examiner finds that Archer does not teach “detecting the presence
of the called party, and the notification prompting the called party for
instructions for handling the incoming call and route the call in accordance
with instruction from the called party” Answer 4. The Examiner finds that
Pepper teaches these features. Answer 4. We concur with the Examiner’s
finding that Archer does not teach prompting the called party for routing
instructions and that Pepper teaches prompting the calling party for routing
instructions. Facts 3 and 4. However, we do not find that these teachings
meet the claims. Appellants’ independent claims recite that notification is
sent to plural devices at which the called party is detected to be present.
Pepper discusses notifying the called party and querying the user for routing
at one device, the PDA. Fact 4. Further, the Examiner cites to Pepper, col.
10, ll. 37-41 as teaching determining the location of the called party. While
the devices discussed in column 10, lines 37-41, are devices at the same
location as the called party, they are not the devices which receive the
6

Appeal 2009-002848
Application 10/755,491
notification for information concerning routing of the call; rather they are
devices to which the call will be routed based upon priority. Fact 5. Thus,
Appellants’ arguments have persuaded us that the Examiner has not shown
that the combination of the references teach all of the limitations of
dependent claims 1, 7, 15, and 24. Accordingly, we will not sustain the
Examiner’s rejection of claims 1, 3 through 5, 7, 8, 10, 14 through 16, 21,
22, 24, 25, 30, and 31 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over
Archer in view of Pepper.

The Examiner has not shown that the teachings of Cermak,
Balasuriya, or Redding teach the features discussed above as being missing
from the combination of Archer and Pepper. Accordingly, we will not
sustain the Examiner’s rejection of:
Claims 2, 11, 12, 23, and 32 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Archer in view of Pepper and Cermak;
Claims 13, 17, 18, 26, and 27 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Archer in view of Pepper and Balasuriya; and,
Claims 19 and 28 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable
over Archer in view of Pepper and Balasuriya and Redding.

7

Appeal 2009-002848
Application 10/755,491
ORDER
The decision of the Examiner to reject claims 1 through 32 is
reversed.
REVERSED

ELD

AT&T LEGAL DEPARTMENT - CC
ATTN: PATENT DOCKETING
ROOM 2A-207
ONE AT&T WAY
BEDMINSTER, NJ 07921
8