11434841 (P.T.A.B. Apr. 20, 2015)

Ex Parte Khuc

Patent Trial and Appeal BoardApr 20, 2015

11434841 (P.T.A.B. Apr. 20, 2015)

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. 11/434,841 05/16/2006 Minh Duy Khuc 1220b 5235 28004 7590 04/20/2015 SPRINT 6391 SPRINT PARKWAY KSOPHT0101-Z2100 OVERLAND PARK, KS 66251-2100 EXAMINER OH, ANDREW CHUNG SUK ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 2466 MAIL DATE DELIVERY MODE 04/20/2015 PAPER 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. PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07) UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE ____________ BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD ____________ Ex parte MINH DUY KHUC ____________ Appeal 2013-001793 Application 11/434,841 1 Technology Center 2400 ____________ Before JEAN R. HOMERE, JEFFREY S.SMITH and KEVIN C. TROCK, Administrative Patent Judges. TROCK, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL Introduction Appellant appeals under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Final Rejection of claims 1–20. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). We AFFIRM. 1 Appellant indicates the Real Party in Interest is Sprint Communications Company L.P. App. Br. 2. Appeal 2013-001793 Application 11/434,841 2 Invention The claimed invention relates to internet routing systems, and in particular, to a system that provides routing information to internet gateways. Spec. 1. Exemplary Claim Claim 1, illustrative of the claims on appeal, is reproduced below with key limitations emphasized. A routing system to route voice communications over an internet to a service operation, the routing system comprising: call processing software; and a routing server configured to receive a first message indicating a first telephone number for a first voice communication from a first caller, process the first telephone number with the call processing software to select a first internet address, and transfer a second message indicating the first internet address, wherein the first voice communication is transferred to the internet in internet packets with the first internet address in response to the second message, and wherein the internet transfers the internet packets with the first voice communication to the service operation based on the first internet address; the routing server further configured to permit the service operation to modify the call processing software over a remote link and to receive additional messages indicating additional telephone numbers for additional voice communications from additional callers, and process the additional telephone numbers with the modified call processing software to select additional internet addresses. Appeal 2013-001793 Application 11/434,841 3 Applied Prior Art The Examiner relies on the following prior art in rejecting the claims. White US-6069890 May 30, 2000 Miloslavsky US-2001/0043586 A1 Nov. 22, 2001 Civanlar US-5737333 April 7, 1998 Curry US-6233234 B1 May 15, 2001 Jonas US-6137792 Oct. 24, 2000 Rejections Claims 1, 3, 4, 6–11, 13, 14, and 16–20 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over White, Miloslavsky, and Civanlar. Claims 2 and 12 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over White, Miloslavsky, Civanlar, and Curry. Claims 5 and 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over White, Miloslavsky, Civanlar, and Jonas. ISSUE 1. Did the Examiner err in rejecting the claims because the combination of White, Miloslavsky, and Civanlar does not teach or suggest a “routing server further configured to permit the service operation to modify the call processing software over a remote link . . . ”, as recited in claim 1? ANALYSIS Appellant contends the Examiner erred, arguing the combination of White, Miloslavsky, and Civanlar does not teach or suggest a routing server permitting a service operation to modify the call processing software of the routing server as provided by claim 1. App. Br. 7. In particular, Appellant argues Miloslavsky merely teaches that a stat server receives agent status Appeal 2013-001793 Application 11/434,841 4 updates from a call center regardless of whether the call center is permitted by the stat server to transfer the updates. Id. Appellant also argues the combination of Miloslavsky and White is improper because there is no teaching, suggestion, or motivation to combine the two references and the Examiner’s articulated motivation to combine makes no sense because it doesn’t mention the functionality of White. App. Br. 8. We have considered Appellant’s arguments, but they are not persuasive of Examiner error. The Examiner finds, and we agree, Miloslavsky teaches or suggests a routing server (Fig.1, items 207, 208, 209 and ¶¶ 61, 76) configured to permit a service operation to modify call processing software over a remote link (Fig.1, items 210, 211 and ¶¶ 74–81, 108). Ans. 4, 14. The Examiner also finds, and we agree, the Specification does not provide a special definition for the terms “permission” or “permit”. Ans. 15. The Examiner finds, and we agree, Miloslavsky teaches or suggests a call center that accesses stat servers (¶76), indicating the call center is permitted access by the stat server or the network administrators as that term is commonly understood. Ans. 16. The Examiner reasons, and we agree, the act of updating the stat servers by the call center in Miloslavsky indicates the call center has the permission, ability, or opportunity to access the stat servers, which falls within the plain meaning of the term "permit" as recited in claim 1. Ans. 16. In Reply, Appellant argues the Specification provides that the service operation can dynamically alter the table in the routing server to control routing and that Miloslavsky is not able to modify a table in the stat server. Rep. Br. 2. However, this limitation is not expressly found in claim 1 and Appeal 2013-001793 Application 11/434,841 5 the use of the term “configured” in claim 1 does not act to import such a limitation from the Specification into the claim. See SuperGuide Corp. v. DirecTV Enters., Inc., 358 F.3d 870, 875 (Fed. Cir. 2004) (“Though understanding the claim language may be aided by the explanations contained in the written description, it is important not to import into a claim limitations that are not a part of the claim.”). Appellant’s argument regarding an improper combination of references is also not persuasive of Examiner error. App. Br. 8. The Examiner finds, and we agree, Miloslavsky teaches the benefits of applying intelligent call routing at a call center (¶¶ 75–80), which can be applied to the IP telephony routing system of White (abstract). Ans. 20. The Examiner also finds, and we agree, this would enhance commercial opportunities by providing incoming callers with improved services of routing the incoming caller to the destination that would best service the incoming caller's needs. Id. These benefits provide a sufficient reason for those of ordinary skill in the art to combine such known elements in the fashion claimed by Appellant. See KSR Int'l Co. v. Teleflex, Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 416 (2007). Accordingly, we agree with the Examiner’s finding the combination of White, Miloslavsky, and Civanlar teaches or suggests a routing server configured to permit a service operation to modify call processing software over a remote link within the meaning of claim 1. CONCLUSION We conclude the Examiner did not err in finding the combination of cited prior art teaches or suggests the claim limitations discussed above. Accordingly, we sustain the rejection of independent claim 1 and Appeal 2013-001793 Application 11/434,841 6 independent claim 11, which recites similar limitations, as well as dependent claims 2–10, and 12–20, which were not separately argued. DECISION We AFFIRM the Examiner’s rejection of claims 1–20. 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). AFFIRMED pgc